1

Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Saad Hacking Corp.

OATH Index No. 938/09(Oct.08, 2008)

Following a default hearing, respondent medallion owner found guilty of failing to comply with petitioner’sdirective tosubmit an affidavit identifying the driver on duty at a specified date and time. Suspension of medallion license until respondent complies with directive, plus a $200 fine recommended.

______

NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS

In the Matter of

TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION

Petitioner

-against-

SAAD HACKING CORP.

Respondent

______

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

INGRID M. ADDISON,Administrative Law Judge

The Taxi and Limousine Commissionbrought this proceeding under its rules and the New York City Administrative Code. Admin. Code § 19-506(a); 35 RCNY § 8-02(c). Petitioner alleged that medallion licensee Saad Hacking Corp.,respondent, failed to comply with its directive to complete and submit an affidavit, identifying the driver of respondent’s medallion cab number 4K53 at a specified date and time, in violation of its rulegoverning taxicab owners. 35 RCNY § 1-68(a) (Lexis 2008).

Respondent failed to appear for a hearing at this tribunal scheduled for October 7, 2008. Petitioner’s submissions were sufficient to establish that it served respondent with the notice of hearing by first-class mail on September 12, 2008. Petitioner’s proof consisted of a stamped certification by petitioner’s counsel stating that he placed the documents in an envelope addressed to the respondent at the address indicated on the notice of hearing and deposited said envelope in the normal course of business with the TLC mail service (Pet. Ex.1). The address on the notice of hearing matched the address in petitioner’s database and reflected on its CAMIS report (Pet. Ex. 2). Counsel also submitted anotarized affidavit from its mailroom supervisor affirming that on a daily basis, petitioner’s mailroom staff collect outgoing packages, check that proper postage is applied,and either deposit them in an official United States Postal Service (“USPS”) receptacle or hand deliver them to USPS (attached to Pet. Ex. 1). Based upon this evidence, I found that respondent was properly served pursuant to petitioner’s rules for service and granted petitioner’s motion to declare respondent in default and proceed in the form of an inquest. At the hearing, petitioner relied upon documentary evidence.

For the reasons below, I find the evidence sufficient to provethat respondent failed to comply with a Commission directive and recommend that a suspension be imposed upon respondent until it complies with the Commission’s directive, plus a $200 fine.

ANALYSIS

Taxicab medallion owners are required tocomply with directives from the Commission and its representatives. 35 RCNY § 1-68(a). The rule provides that “An owner shall promptly answer and comply with all questions, communications, directives and summonses from the commission or its representatives and the NYC Department of Investigation or its representatives.” In order to establish a prima facie case, petitioner must show that it served respondent with the directive and that respondent failed to comply. Pursuant to Commission rules, a notice may be served by “first class mail in a postpaid envelope addressed to the last mailing address filed with the Commission.” 35 RCNY § 8-05(a). Failure to comply with a directive may result in a $200 fine and suspension of its medallion license until compliance. 35 RCNY § 1-86 (Lexis 2008).

Petitioner submitted an affidavit form that was sent to respondent onJuly 10, 2008, for respondent to complete, have notarized, and return tothe Commission’s investigation unit within ten working days. Petitioner also submitted a “certification” dated July 10, from one of its investigators, confirming that he had inserted the affidavit form in an envelope addressed to respondent at respondent’s address on file with petitioner and had placed said envelope in a box labeled “agency mail,” at the TLC Woodside facility on the same day (Pet. Ex. 5). The investigator added that the agency mail from that box is normally delivered to the TLC mail service within one business day, and based on his communication with the person who oversees the mailroom, first-class postage is applied and the mail is then remitted through USPS within one business day, as part of the normal course of business. I was reluctant to accord much weight to this document because it was not submitted on TLC letterhead and neither was it a sworn statement. Nonetheless, its content overcame its inadequacies and I found it sufficient to establish petitioner’s prima facie case that it served the directive upon respondent. Moreover, the affidavit form which accompanied the directive was also included with the petition and notice of hearing (Pet. Ex. 1).

The directive required respondent to provide the Commission with identifying information on the driver of medallion number 4K53, as a result of an incident involving that driver on June 15, 2008, at 12:15 a.m. It also warned respondent that failure to answer and provide the original trip sheet of the driver may result in the imposition of a fine for violation of rule 1-68(a) (Pet. Ex. 4). Identical language was included in the affidavit that was sent (Pet. Ex. 1).

On September 8, 2008, one of petitioner’s investigators notified petitioner’s counsel, Marc T. Hardekopf, Esq., that respondent had not complied with its directive (Pet. Ex. 3). Accordingly, this hearing was scheduled. As discussed above,Mr. Hardekopf certified that he delivered the Petition and Notice of Hearing to petitioner’s mail room on September 12, 2008. In accordance with petitioner’s mailroom’s normal practice, the mail was delivered to USPS on the same day, for service upon respondent by first-class mail (Pet. Ex. 1). Petitioner’sNotice of Hearing warned respondent that its TLC medallion license may be suspended until compliance with the directive (Pet. Ex. 1). Here, the evidence showed that respondent failed to comply with petitioner’s request for information.

The information requested by petitioner enables the pursuit of consumer complaints. Respondent’s failure to comply serves to impede and/or delay the Commission’s investigation of the complaint.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

  1. Petitioner properly served respondent with the petition and notice of hearing.
  1. Respondent failed to comply with the Commission’s directive, in violation of 35 RCNY § 1-68(a).

RECOMMENDATION

The penalty for the proven charge is a $200 fine and suspension untilrespondent complies with the Commission’s directive. 35 RCNY §§1-68(a), 1-86. At the hearing, petitionerrequested the full penalty. That is appropriate. Accordingly, I recommend suspension of respondent’s medallion license until it complies with petitioner’s directiveto submit the completed and duly notarized affidavit, plus a $200 fine.

Ingrid M. Addison

Administrative Law Judge

October 8, 2008

SUBMITTED TO:

MATTHEW W. DAUS

Commissioner

APPEARANCES:

MARC T. HARDEKOPF, ESQ.

Attorney for Petitioner

No Appearance by or forRespondent