Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Global Limo Inc., Lic. No. 5298851

DECISION

The appeal of the Taxi & Limousine Commission (the “Commission”) is granted.

The decision of the Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) is reversed and the matter may be scheduled for a new hearing.

BACKGROUND

On May 30, 2008, the Commission appealed ALJ Margery Budoff’s decision dated May 22, 2008. In that decision, the ALJ dismissed the Administrative Code section 19-506B1 violation stated in summons number 1193820A.

The decision states:

Inspector testified that vehicle dropped off passengers at hospital. Passenger interview revealed fare was a street hail. Owner of vehicle which was licensed in NJ testified that he did not dispatch vehicle to operate point to point in NYC. No prima facie case was made out of dispatch by owner.

On appeal, the Commission argues, in relevant part, that the ALJ erred because:

Here, the Respondent did not allege that his vehicle was stolen; he admitted [giving] the vehicle to the driver to operate for-hire. Legally, the driver was acting in the course of his employment and the employer, in this case, the owner of the vehicle, is responsible for any act or omission committed by the driver during the course of his employment. As long as the Respondent did not deny dispatching the driver, it is immaterial whether the driver operates within the confines of New Jersey or point to point in New York City ….

Global Limo Inc. (the “respondent”) did not file a response to the Commission’s appeal.

ANALYSIS

Administrative Code section 19-506B (“19-506B”) provides, in relevant part:

Any person who shall permit another to operate … any vehicle as a taxicab … or for-hire vehicle in the city, without first having obtained an appropriate license therefore, shall be guilty of a violation hereof … . [Emphasis added]

1 Permitting an unlicensed driver to operate an unlicensed vehicle for hire

This document was printed on paper containing 30% post-consumer materials. Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Global Limo Inc., Lic. No. 5298851

An owner violates 19-506B when the evidence shows that he gave the driver permission to operate for hire within the City of New York (see Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Khoon-Foke Yaung, Lic. No. 5129587 [March 19, 2009]).

Here, the ALJ dismissed the 19-506B violation based on the issuing inspector’s failure to establish that the owner dispatched the vehicle to operate for hire in New York City. However, it was held in Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Yukanov Fuzaylov, Lic. No. U65098 (April 29, 1994) that ownership of a vehicle engaged in for-hire activity creates a rebuttable presumption that the vehicle is being operated for-hire with the owner’s permission. The ALJ erred because there was a presumption that the vehicle was operating for hire but the ALJ improperly shifted the burden of proof to the Commission to show that the owner gave permission to the driver. As a result, there must be a new hearing.

Dated: October 1, 2009

Charles R. Fraser Deputy Commissioner for Legal Affairs

By: Linda Hirsch Administrative Law Judge, Appeals Unit

This document was printed on paper containing 30% post-consumer materials.