Taxi & Limousine Commission V. Mohammed Abdul Malek, Lic. No. 7T16

Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Mohammed Abdul Malek, Lic. No. 7T16

Taxi & Limousine Commission v.Mohammed Abdul Malek, Lic. No. 7T16

DECISION

The Commission’s appeal is granted.

The decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) is incorrect and is reversed. The summons are remanded for a new hearing.

BACKGROUND

On November 20, 2007, pursuant to Rule 8-13C, the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission (“Commission”) filed an appeal of the decision of ALJ Eileen Caulfield, dated November 13, 2007, wherein the ALJ found Mohammed Abdul Malek (“the respondent”) in violation ofRule §1-11A[1]issued in connection with summonsnumber 1164964A.

The decision appealed from sets forth, in part:

This summons is merged with summons 1164963 which is same violation to same respondent.

On appeal, the Commission states:

The Commission appeals the decision of Administrative Law Judge Eileen Caulfield in dismissing summons 1164964A by merging it with summons 1164963A.

Summons number 1164964Awas issued because the Respondent’s vehicle did not have all its equipment in good working order in violation of Rule 1-11A. Summons number 1164963A was issued in violation of Rule2-26A because of Respondent’s failure to carry out the obligation of continuing personal inspection and reasonable determination that all equipment in his vehicle is in good working order.

The respondent did not file a response to the Commission’s appeal.

ANALYSIS

The Commission appears to be objecting to the merging of summons number 1164964A into summons 1164963A. A review of the record shows that summons number 1164964A was issued to the respondent, in his capacity as taxicab owner, on October 2, 2007, for having a broken right rear break light, in violation of Rule 1-11A and that summons number 1164963A was also issued to the respondent, on October 2, 2007, for having a broken right rear break light, but in his capacity as taxicab driver, in violation of Rule 2-26A[2]. [Emphasis added].

Owner and driver summonses are issued separately and different findings of fact and conclusions of law may properly be reached on each (see,New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission v.Sulaiman Haqq, Appeal #630572A [May 14, 2002]).Here, there were two separate and distinct violations, one involving the driver of a taxicab and the other involving the owner of a taxicab. Respondent has different obligations to the Commission as a taxicab owner and as a taxicab driver. Thus, summonses issued to an owner and a driver, even if the operative facts arose out of the same occurrence, were not duplicative(see,New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission v.Jose M. Stengel, Appeal #5152176 [July 22, 2008]). The ALJ erred in merging the summonses.

Dated: March 24, 2009

Charles R. Fraser

Deputy Commissioner for Legal Affairs

By: D. Rivers

Administrative Law Judge, Appeals Unit

- 1–

Printed on paper containing 30% post-consumer material.

[1]All taxicab equipment must be in good working order.

[2]Driver shall not operate a taxicab unless all equipment is in good working order.