1
Taxi and Limousine Comm’n v. Jean-Baptiste
OATH Index No. 761/08 (Dec. 26, 2007)
Petitioner proved that respondent assaulted and harassed a passenger, prevented her from leaving a taxicab, and failed to give her proper change for $20. License revocation and $375 fine recommended.
______
NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS
In the Matter of
TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION
Petitioner
-against-
HAROLD JEAN-BAPTISTE
Respondent
______
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KEVIN F. CASEY, Administrative Law Judge
The Taxi and Limousine Commission brought this license revocation proceeding under its rules and the New York City Administrative Code. Petitioner charged respondent, taxi driver Harold Jean-Baptiste,with assaulting and harassing a passenger, preventing her from safely leaving his taxicab, and failing to make change for a $20 bill, in violation of Taxicab Drivers Rules. 35 RCNY §§ 2-60(b), 2-60(a), 2-21(a), and 2-47(b) (ALJ Ex. 1).
At a hearing on November 9 and 27, 2007, petitioner relied upon the testimony of complainant Sabrina Seetarram and respondent testified in his own behalf.
For the reasons below, I find that petitioner proved all of the charges. I recommend a $375 fine and revocation of respondent’s taxicab drivers license.
ANALYSIS
The charges arose from an incident that occurred in Manhattan on March 12, 2007. Shortly before 5:00 p.m., complainant Sabrina Seetarram hailed respondent’s cab on Canal Street and asked him to drive to 61st Street and Third Avenue. Because respondent could not turn right on 60th or 61st Streets, which are one-way eastbound, he went to 62nd Street and turned right. As he approached Lexington Avenue, Seetarram asked him to pull over.
At this point, the stories diverge. According to Seetarram, respondent stopped the taxicab with the meter at $13.70. She gave him a $20 bill and, as he made change, the meter continued to run (Tr. 40). Seetarram yelled at respondent that the meter should have stopped (Tr. 39). With a $1.00 rush hour surcharge, the fare came to $15.50 (Tr. 6). Respondent ignored Seetarram and gave her two or three dollars and some coins (Tr. 13). Seetarram continued to yell at respondent and threatened tocall the Taxi and Limousine Commission (Tr. 42).
Seetarram testified that she threatened to write down respondent’s taxicab drivers license number and he became upset and told her that he had a family (Tr. 6). According to Seetarram, he declared, “You’re raising my blood pressure” and drove the taxicab through the intersection of 62nd Street and Lexington Avenue (Tr. 11, 22). As he sped towards Third Avenue, respondent accused his passenger of holding him “hostage” (Tr. 7). When Seetarramcalled 911 on her cell phone, respondent pulled over and stopped near the intersection of 62nd Street and Third Avenue (Tr.8, 11).
Seetarram recalled that respondent got out of the taxicab, screamed at her, and grabbed her by the arm (Tr. 10). She told him not to touch her (Tr. 21). As respondent pulled Seetarram out of the taxicab, her pocketbook opened and some of her belongings spilled out (Tr. 8). She was especially concerned about $5,000 that she was going to deposit, on her employer’s behalf, at a nearby bank (Tr. 8). When a bystander approached, respondent gathered Seetarram’s belongings from his taxicab and threw them on the street and sidewalk (Tr. 8, 19).
According to Seetarram, respondent also falsely accused her of eating food inside his taxicab (Tr. 24). Before he drove off without providing a receipt, he threw French fries at her (Tr. 10, 18, 24). Seetarram insisted that she had not been eating (Tr. 24). She recalled that the French fries were on the floor and passenger seat when she entered respondent’s car (Tr. 24). Seetarram recalled that she stopped eating in taxicabs after an earlier incident when a driver yelled at her for snacking and making a mess (Tr. 24).
RespondentHarold Jean Baptiste, a taxicab driver for nearly 20 years, testified that he picked up respondent across from a “hamburger joint” in downtown Manhattan (Tr. 44). He asserted that Seetarram atetwo large hamburgers in the back of his taxicaband he speculated that she was so busy eating that she was not paying attention to his driving (Tr. 45, 62). When he turned right on 62nd Street, she became irate (Tr. 46, 48). She told him to pull over and stop between Park and Lexington Avenues (Tr. 48).
Respondent claimed that he turned off the meter, which read $14.80, when Seetarram handed him $20 (Tr. 48-49). He gave her $5.20 change and a receipt (Tr. 49, 74). Meanwhile, respondent recalled, Seetarram called him a “motherfucker” and “a thief” (Tr. 49, 74). She complained that he was supposed to turn towards Third Avenue before reaching 62nd Street (Tr. 49). Despite respondent’s request to “calm down,” Seetarram continued to curse and yell at him (Tr. 50). Respondent remained calm and did not argue with her (Tr. 50). He testified that he advised her that his license number was on the receipt and he put his thumbs in his ears to drown out her yelling (Tr. 50). Respondent estimated that Seetarram stayed in the car for 15 to 20 minutes, cursing at him (Tr. 51-52). He then told her, “Why don’t you shoot me” or “you (are) kidnapping me in my car” (Tr. 51).
Although respondent is much bigger than Seetarram, he testified that he was scared (Tr. 51). When she called the Taxi and Limousine Commission to report that respondent was stealing from her, he asked her to get out of the taxicab and she refused (Tr. 51-52). Spotting a pair of police officers down the block, respondent told Seetarram that he would take her to the officers orthe nearest precinct because she was refusing to leave his taxicab (Tr. 54). He then “drove the car real slow” within 12 feet of police officers on the corner (Tr. 54). Respondent said, “Officer, Officer I have a problem” but they looked at him and walked away (Tr. 54). He claimed that police officers repeatedly ignored him when he had disputes with female passengers (Tr. 54, 74).
After the police officers walked away, Seetarram got out of the taxicab and left the door open (Tr. 54). Respondent recalled that she left a mess, including French fries that she had crushed with her feet (Tr. 55). As he went to his trunk to get a towel to clean the back seat, respondent passed Seetarram on the sidewalk (Tr. 56). Some of her belongings spilled out of her purse and she accused respondent of pushing her (Tr. 57). Respondent denied that he had any physical contact with Seetarram (Tr. 57). He did not help her pick up what she had dropped because he feared that she would accuse him of theft (Tr. 57, 68).
Petitioner charged respondent with violating four Taxicab Drivers Rules: assaulting a passenger, Rule 2-60(b); verbal harassment, Rule 2-60(a); endangering a passenger’s safety, Rule 2-21(a); and refusal to make proper change of $20, Rule 2-47(b). To prevail, petitioner must prove the charges by a preponderance of the credible evidence. See Taxi and Limousine Comm’n v. Martinez, OATH Index No. 1183/07, mem. dec. at 3-4 (Apr. 11, 2007); see also Taxi and Limousine Comm’n v. Narcisse, OATH Index No. 1998/07, at 5 (Aug. 16, 2007), modified on penalty, Comm’r/Chair Dec. (Sept. 24, 2007) (discussing factors to be considered in making credibility determinations).
This was a pure credibility contest and Seetarram was much more believable than respondent. Her testimony was clear, detailed, and persuasive. She had no motive to lie and she avoided exaggeration. For example, she did not claim that she suffered any injuries when respondent threw her out of his taxicab. Her candid admission that she was the first to raise her voice also enhanced her credibility.
In contrast, respondent’s testimony was inconsistent and illogical. He testified on direct examination that Seetarram called him a “motherfucker” (Tr. 49). On cross-examination, he added that she also called him a “stupid Haitian” (Tr. 65). If Seetarram had spewed such a racist remark, surely respondent would have mentioned it on direct examination. Respondent also made no sense when he claimed that Seetarram ignored the route and the meter because she was preoccupied with eating hamburgers. In the unlikely event that Seetarram had been eating in the back seat for the entire ride, it is doubtful that such activity would havedistracted her. Likewise, respondent’s claim that he engaged in a 15 to 20 minute standoff with Seetarram, without raising his voice,defied common sense. It was also hard to believe that two police officers turned their backs on him and ignored his plea for help.
In short, respondent’s testimony lacked any credibility. Crediting Seetarram’s testimony, I conclude that respondent assaulted her by grabbing her arm and forcibly removing her from the taxicab. He harassed her and endangered her safety when he argued with her and drove her, against her will, through an intersection. Finally, he failed to give her proper change. Thus, petitioner proved all of the charges. See Taxi and Limousine Comm’n v. Kharoufi, OATH Index No. 1277/07 (Mar. 12, 2007); Taxi and Limousine Comm’n v. Kalontarov, OATH Index No. 1732/97 (Sept. 10, 1997).
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Petitioner proved that respondent assaulted a passenger by grabbing her arm and forcing her out of his taxicab, in violation of Taxicab Drivers Rule 2-60(b).
2.Petitioner proved that respondent verbally harassed a passenger by yelling at her, in violation of Taxicab Drivers Rule 2-61(a).
3.Petitioner proved that respondent drove his taxicab in an unreasonable manner which endangered his passenger, in violation of Taxicab Drivers Rule 2-21(a).
4.Petitioner proved that respondent failed to make change for $20, in violation of Taxicab Drivers Rule 2-47(b).
RECOMMENDATION
After making the above findings, I reviewed respondent’sdriving record. In the past seven years he has been found guilty of violating Taxicab Drivers Rules on five occasions. Some of those incidents were relatively minor violations of rules concerning trip sheets and receipts. But he was also found guilty in 2003 of threatening or harassing behavior, which included the use or attempted use of force. He has also been involved in a pair of automobile accidents in the last two years. Petitioner now seeks license revocation.
Under the Commission’s rules, assault and harassment of a passenger may lead to license revocation. 35 RCNY § 2-86; see, e.g., Taxi and Limousine Comm’n v. Wali, OATH Index No. 1849/07, at 7-8 (Aug. 3, 2007) (revocation recommended where driver verbally harassed passenger, pulled her hair, and banged her head against the partition); Taxi and Limousine Comm’n v. Elbstamey, OATH Index No. 976/07 (Jan. 8, 2007) (license revoked where driver made sexually explicit remarks and grabbed a passenger); Taxi and Limousine Comm’n v. Jaffar, OATH Index No. 2174/00 (July 13, 2000) (license revoked where driver verbally abused passenger and struck him on the cheek); Taxi and Limousine Comm’n v. Raoul, OATH Index No. 752/99 (Feb. 8, 1999) (license revoked where driver threatened passenger, pulled her out of the taxicab, and abandoned her). The Commission’s rules also authorize fines of at least $350 and $25, respectively, for unsafe driving and refusal to make proper change for $20. Id.
Stern penalties are appropriate here. Following a petty fare dispute, respondent berated his passenger and violently removed her from his taxicab. It is also troubling that respondent showed no remorse and has a prior history of similar behavior.
Accordingly, I recommend revocation of respondent’s taxicab driverslicense and fines of $350 and $25, for a total of $375.
Kevin F. Casey
Administrative Law Judge
December 26, 2007
SUBMITTED TO:
MATTHEW W. DAUS
Commissioner
APPEARANCES:
MARC T. HARDEKOPF, ESQ.
Attorney for Petitioner
MICHELLE PARKER, ESQ.