DOCSLIB.ORG

LINION, TAXI MEDALLION OWNER DRIVER 1S-Cv-E042

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LINION, TAXI MEDALLION OWNER DRIVER 1S-Cv-E042 Case 1:15-cv-09042-AT Document 66 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 37 LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEV/ YORK ------x MELROSE CREDIT LINION, PROGRESSIVE CREDIT LINION, LOMTO FEDERAL CREDIT LINION, TAXI MEDALLION OWNER DRIVER ASSOCIATION, [NC., KL MOTORS,INC., SAFINI TRANSPORT, INC., WHITE & BLUE GROUP CORP., FIMA SERVICE CO., INC., CARL 1s-cv-e042 (AT) GINSBURG, aNd JOSEPH ITZCHAKY, Plaintiffs -against- THE CITY OF NEW YORK; THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI & LIMOUSINE COMMISSION; and MEERA JOSHI, in her Official Capacity as the Chair of the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission, Defendants. ------x DEFENDANTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS'MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ZACHARY W. CARTER Corporation Counsel of the City of New York Attorney for Defendants 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007 (212) 3s6-219e June24,2016 MICHELLE GOLDBERG-CAHN, KAREN SELVIN, Of Counsel. SAMANTHA SCHONFELD, On the Memorandum Case 1:15-cv-09042-AT Document 66 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 37 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES lll ARGUMENT POINT I PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO MEET THRESHOLD REQUTREMENTS.... ,........ 1 A. Plaintiffs Lack Standing ............ I B. Res JudicataBarc Plaintiffs' Claims 4 C. Claims are Barred by Doctrine of Laches 6 POINT II. 9 PLAINTIFFS' EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS FAIL AS A MATTER OF LAW, 9 A. Medallion Taxicab Owners Are Not Similarly Situated to FHV Operators As a Matter of Law... 9 B. Regulatory Distinctions Between Medallion Taxis and FHVs Are Presumptively Valid and Rational. l3 POINT III ,,,,.,, 17 PLAINTIFFS' TAKINGS CLAIMS ARE NOT RIPE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AND FAIL AS A MATTER OF LAW l7 A. Plaintiffs Have Not Sought Just Compensation in State Court, and Thus, Their Takings Claims Are Not Ripe l7 B. Plaintiffs'Takings Claims Must Be Dismissed As a Matter of Law 20 POINT IV 23 PLAINTIFFS' DUE PROCESS CLAIMS FAIL AS A MATTER OF LAW.. 23 Case 1:15-cv-09042-AT Document 66 Filed 06/24/16 Page 3 of 37 Page POINT V ,,,27 PLAINTIFFS' STATE LAW FRAUD CLAIM SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 27 CONCLUSION 29 lt Case 1:15-cv-09042-AT Document 66 Filed 06/24/16 Page 4 of 37 Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases 520 East 81st Street Assoc. v. State of New York, ee N.Y.2d 43 (2002) l8 Alfonso v. Fernandez, 195 A.D.2d 46 (2d Dep't 1993) 5 Black Car Assistance Corp. v. City of New York, 2013 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1692 (April23,20l3), aff d,2013 N.Y. App. Div LEXIS 6919 (lst Dep't Oct.29,2013) 7 Boston Taxi Owner's Ass'n v. Cit)'of Boston, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43496 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2016).... 15,2 I City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center. Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (re9s)... l3 Concrete Pipe & Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust, s08 u.s. 602 (tee3).... .22 D'Antonio v. Metro. Transp. Auth, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16726 (S.D.N.Y, Mar.4,2008) ,,.,,,',,.'28 Dawson v. Higsins, 154 Misc. 2d 811 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. 1992). l8 Dreher v. Doherty. 531 Fed. Appx. 82 (2d Cir. 2013) t9 Ferris v. Cuevas, I l8 F.3d t22 (2d Cir. 1997) 4 Ford v. New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 24 N.Y.3d 488 (2014)....... 5 Gansemi v. City of New York, l3 Misc. 3d lll2 (NI.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings. Co. 2006). l8 Gebresalassie v. District of Columbia, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35093 (D,D,C. Mar. 18,2016) 10, 13, 14 lil Case 1:15-cv-09042-AT Document 66 Filed 06/24/16 Page 5 of 37 Page C Health & 164 F.3d 789 (2d Cir. 1999). ,',,,,,.,,,29 v. Arthur Andersen 72F.3d 1085 (2d Cir. 1995) 2 Jackson Sawmill v. United States. 428F. Supp. 555 (1977), affd,580 F. 2d302 (1978), cert. denied,439 U.S. t070 (t97e).......... .2'l Joe Sanfelippo Cabs, Inc. v, Cit)' of Milwaukee, 46 F. Supp.3d 888, 893 (8.D. Wisc. 2014) .,,.,.,14 Kim v. City ofNew York, e0 N.Y.2d t (t997).... 18 Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A.. Inc., s44 U.S. s28 (200s) 20 Marom v. Cit)¡ of New York, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS28466 (S.D.N.Y. }l4ar,7,2016) 13 Minneapolis Taxi Owners Coalition" Inc. v. Cit)' of Minneapolis, 572F.3d 502 (8th Cir.2009) .21 Nnebe v. Daus, 644 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 201 l) ,,2,3 Peanut Ouota Holders Ass'n v. United States, 421 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......... .....20,21 Penn Central v of New York. 438 U,S. 104 (1978) 22 Pharr v. Evergreen Garden. Inc., 123 Fed. Appx. 420 (2d Cir. 2005). 6 Rogers Truck Line v. U.S., 14 cl. ct. 108 (cl. ct. 1987)......,........,. .21 Ruston v. Town Bd. for Skaneateles, 610 F.3d 5s (2d Cir.2010). ,,12 Sanitation & Recycling Indus. Inc. v, City of N.Y., 928 F. Supp, 407 (1996),af?d,197 F,3d987 (1996) ,,',,,,,,','23 tv Case 1:15-cv-09042-AT Document 66 Filed 06/24/16 Page 6 of 37 Page Santini v. Connecticut Hazardous V/aste Mgmt. Serv., 342F.3d 1 l8 (2d Cir. 2003). t9 r tA" c (Brt Slnnrrtn nn hehclf nf Nøthnn v. Jnsenh 183 A.D.2d 102(3d Dep't 1992) 6 Corr. Svcs. 719 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2013). ..14 St. Pierre v. Dyer, 208 F.3d 394 (2d Cir. 2000). 5 United States v. Schmitt, 999F. Supp.317 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) 28 Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State" Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982)... 2 Villager Pond, Inc. v. Town of Darien, 56 F.3d 375 (2d Cir. 1995). t9 Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. t72 (r98s) .,17, 19 Statutes Laws of the State of New York, Chapter 9 (2012)..... ,20 NYC Administrative Code g 7-201(a) .28,29 NYC Administrative Code $ l9-502(l).. l0 NYC Administrative Code $$ 19-502(g) 10 NYC Administrative Code g 19-502(u).... ,........1I NYC Administrative Code $ 19-504(i)... ',,,,,,23 NYC Administrative Code g l9-504(Ð .16 NYC Administrative Code g 19-515(a).. l6 NYC Administrative Code $ l9-516(a) t6 New York City Charter $ 1043 et seq... 24 N.Y. General Municipal Law $ 50-e ..... 28 Case 1:15-cv-09042-AT Document 66 Filed 06/24/16 Page 7 of 37 Page Other Authorities 35 RCNY $ sl-03 ,,,.,,,.22,23 3s RCNY $ sa-17(e)......... ,... ... .. .... I I 3s RCNY $ s5,04(h)........ ,...,......... l6 35 RCNY $ ss-04(i) ........,.....16 3s RCNY $ ss-l1(aX1) .............. l6 35 RCNY $ s8-21(cXsXxii)... 8 3s RCNY $ s8-26(i) 14 3s RCNY $ s8-26(a)(l).......... ll 35 RCNY $ 58-43 ',,20 35 RCNY $ 58-s0 3,8,9,23 3s RCNY $ s8-s0(c). .24 3s RCNY $ s8-s0(e). 24 3s RCNY S 58-s0(h) I 3s RCNY $ s8-s0c) ,,,,,,,,,,,,..3,8,26 35 RCNY seA-03(c)(3).. .....,.,..........,... I I 35 RCNY $ seA-2e(d).... .,.........,..,.,..... l6 35 RCNY $ seB-26(a).... t6 CPLR $ 7806 t7 FRCP 9......... .28 FRCP 12(bxl)..... t7 FRCP 12(bX6).,.... I New York State Constitution Article 1, Section 7 ....... I 8 vl Case 1:15-cv-09042-AT Document 66 Filed 06/24/16 Page 8 of 37 Defendants submit this reply memorandum of law in further support of their motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(bxl) and l2(b)(6). As detailed herein, the girth of Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, dated June 6, 2016 (Pls. Opp. Memo"), does not obfuscate the fact that plaintiffs' claims lack any and all merit and should be dismissed. POINT I PLAINTIF'FS FAIL TO MEET THRESHOLD REOT]IREMENTS. A. Plaintiffs Lack Standing 1. Credit Union Plaintiffs As previously detailed in defendants' initial motion to dismiss papers, the Credit Union Plaintiffs have failed to establish that they are within the zone of interest of the regulations they challenge or that they have suffered an injury-in-fact that is redressable in this proceeding. Notably, in their opposition, plaintiffs do not contend that they are for-hire transportation providers in the City of New York or that they are subject to regulation and oversight by TLC. Instead, they simply assert, in a conclusory fashion, that they have ooadequately alleged that they are within the zone of interest of the challenged regulations," and that they have suffered an injury from the 'oimpairment of their security interest in the medallions, an increasing number of loan deficiencies, troubled debt restructurings, foreclosure, and inevitable balance sheet losses." See Pls. Opp. Memo, at 60-61. In other words, the Credit Union Plaintiffs are asserting that they have standing to bring the instant lawsuit based on their own business failings and lack of due diligence when providing medallion loans. Yet, in their l16 page opposition memorandum plaintiffs fail to identify a single case where a financial lender's poor business decisions provide it with standing to overturn regulations that are solely applicable to its borrower. Case 1:15-cv-09042-AT Document 66 Filed 06/24/16 Page 9 of 37 It is well-settled that to establish standing, a party must assert its own legal rights and interests, not those of a third party. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Inc., 454 U.S. 464,474 (1982); Hirsch v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Worcester Regulations Regarding Taxis and Liveries
    Fare Play? Regulating Worcester’s Livery Vehicles and Taxis Report 12-04 October 2012 Worcester Regional Research Bureau, Inc. 500 Salisbury Street, Worcester, MA 01609 • 508-799-7169 tel • www.wrrb.org FARE PLAY? Regulating Worcester's Livery Vehicles and Taxis EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On July 17, 2012, the Worcester City Council adopted a moratorium on the issuance of new livery vehicle licenses because of disagreements between taxi cab and livery company owners about the enforcement of city regulations regarding livery operations, and in order to give the City Council time to determine whether the City needs to impose a legal limit on the number of livery vehicles operating in Worcester. To assist the City Council in its decision-making, The Research Bureau undertook a review of the origin and history of limiting licenses in Worcester and other cities and the economic impact of these restrictions. Based on its findings, the Bureau makes the following recommendations: • The City should not set a limit to the number of livery vehicles. Doing so would only encourage the spread of illegal, unregulated vehicle operations. Licensed livery vehicles will continue to be required to meet public safety standards. • The City should reconsider the regulation that livery vehicles accept only fares that have been arranged at least two hours in advance. While taxi companies strongly favor this restriction, it does not demonstrably serve the public interest, and would be difficult to enforce in the absence of draconian methods that divert police attention from more important matters. • Such regulations will be even less enforceable as a consequence of new technology which enables consumers to hail private taxi or livery vehicles on demand through a smartphone application and GPS technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Easychair Preprint New York City Medallion Market's Rise, Fall, And
    EasyChair Preprint № 55 New York City Medallion Market's Rise, Fall, and Regulation Implications Sherraina Song EasyChair preprints are intended for rapid dissemination of research results and are integrated with the rest of EasyChair. April 9, 2018 New York City Medallion Market’s Rise, Fall, and Regulation Implications Sherraina Song Shrewsbury High School, Shrewsbury, MA, 01545, USA [email protected] Abstract. Capping the number of licenses giving exclusive right to street hailing passengers, the New York City medallion system manipulated the demand and supply of taxicab market and made the Yellow Cab medallion not only a commodity of scarcity and but also an investment product hotly pursued. Since 1937, the medallion market evolved and experienced four phases of birth, formation, booming, and collapse and is fighting a losing battle against the newly emerged app-based, ride-sharing service providers like Uber and Lyft. This article presented the findings from mining the data made available by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, conducted analysis, and argued the deregulation of the New York City taxicab industry has started and that should not and will not be turned back. Keywords: New York City Taxicab, Yellow Cab Taxis, Medallion, Uber, Lyft, TLC, Taxi & Limousine Commission, Green Cab Taxis, For-Hire Vehicle, SHV, App-based, Ride-sharing New York City Taxicab The New York City (NYC) taxicab market is one of about one million passengers per day and annual revenue of two billion US dollars. Thanks to government regulations, there are two sectors of taxicab services in New York City– street hailing and pre- arranged pick-up and three major classes of taxi cabs - Yellow Taxi Cab (Yellow Cab), For-Hire Vehicles (FHVs), and Street Hail Livery (SHL) Street hailer service providers can pick up passengers in response to a street hail.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Takings and Ridesharing: “Just Compensation” for Taxi Medallion Owners?
    REGULATORY TAKINGS AND RIDESHARING: “JUST COMPENSATION” FOR TAXI MEDALLION OWNERS? David K. Suska* INTRODUCTION .............................................. 184 I. THE TAXI INDUSTRY AND RIDESHARING . 185 A. Taxis and Medallions............................ 185 B. Ridesharing ..................................... 188 II. THE TAKINGS CLAUSE AND GOVERNMENT REGULATION ........................................ 190 A. Mahon and the Advent of Regulatory Takings . 191 B. Penn Central’s Ad Hocery . 192 C. Lucas and Per Se Takings . 193 III. REGULATORY ACCOMMODATION OF RIDESHARING . 194 A. Massachusetts ................................... 195 B. Chicago ........................................ 196 IV. “JUST COMPENSATION” FOR MEDALLION OWNERS? . 198 A. Medallions as Protected Property. 198 B. Applying Penn Central . 201 1. Economic Impact . 201 2. Distinct, Investment-Backed Expectations. 202 3. Character of the Government Action . 204 V. THE CASE FOR TRANSITION RELIEF . 205 A. Internalizing Regulatory Costs and Benefits. 206 B. Accelerating Legal Change . 207 C. Preserving Investment Incentives . 209 D. Counterarguments and Further Considerations . 210 CONCLUSION................................................ 212 * J.D. Candidate, 2016, University of Chicago Law School; M.A., 2009, Univer- sity of Michigan; B.A., 2008, University of Michigan. Many thanks to Professor Jonathan Masur for comments on multiple drafts, and more generally, for taking an interest in this project from an early stage. Thanks also to Professors Daniel Abebe, Anup Malani,
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Overdrive: Taxi Regulations, Market Concentration
    Regulatory Overdrive Taxi Regulations, Market Concentration and Service Availability by Samuel R. Staley, Ph.D., Catherine Annis and Matthew Kelly TAXI October 2018 Regulatory Overdrive Taxi Regulations, Market Concentration and Service Availability Executive Summary Traditional taxis are highly regulated in most American cities, with local regulators determining everything from how many taxis can be licensed to the types of services they can provide to the fares they can charge to where they can pick up customers. Ridesharing apps like Uber and Lyft, meanwhile, operate with comparatively few regulatory constraints, and there is little reason to believe consumers are faring any worse for it. In fact, consumers are increasingly voting with their feet—or phones—and choosing ridesharing services over taxis. This prompts an important policy question: Does traditional taxi regulation make sense in a world with ridesharing? To begin to answer this question, this study reviews the taxi regulations and market characteristics of 44 major U.S. cities. Specifically, it explores (1) the relationship between taxi regulations and concentration of ownership within a city’s taxi industry and (2) the relationship between concentrated ownership and taxi availability. Key findings include: • All 44 cities studied regulate taxis tightly, adopting five of 10 major regulatory provisions on average, but the specific regulations they use vary widely. This suggests cities are making taxi policy absent a common understanding of what regulatory provisions, if any, are necessary to protect consumers. • Taxi markets tend to be highly concentrated. In the average city, the top three taxi firms control about 61 percent of the taxi vehicles operating there.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practices Studies of Taxi Regulation Managing Taxi Supply
    San Francisco Municipal Transportation Best Practices Studies of Taxi Regulation Managing Taxi Supply (***DRAFT***) Best Practices Studies of Taxi Regulation Managing Taxi Supply ***Draft*** Prepared for: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency By: Hara Associates Inc. Bayswater Square, 1066 Somerset Street West, Suite 406, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4T3 613-722-5528, 613-482-4901 (fax), www.haraassociates.com/taxi and Corey, Canapary & Galanis 447 Sutter Street, Penthouse North, San Francisco, CA 94108-4601 415-397-1200, 415-433-3809 (fax), www.ccgresearch.com Hara Associates Reference: 1517 April 3, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... i 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT ..................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 SOME IMPORTANT TERMS .............................................................................................................................. 1-2 2 INDUSTRY STRUCTURE AND ISSSUES 2-1 2.1 A QUICK SKETCH: TAXIS IN SAN FRANCISCO ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 TAXI SHORTAGE: CUSTOMERS ARE NOT BEING SERVED ................................................................................ 2-2 2.3 FAILURE IN THE DISPATCH MARKET ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • In the Year 2020, Even-Numbered Taxicab Medallion Licenses Are Scheduled for Renewal Appointments at BACP’S Public Vehicle Operations at 2350 W
    City of Chicago Business Affairs and Consumer Protection Public Vehicle Operations Division Taxicab Medallion License Renewal Appointments Scheduled for January and February 2020 In the year 2020, Even-numbered taxicab medallion licenses are scheduled for renewal appointments at BACP’s Public Vehicle Operations at 2350 W. Ogden Avenue, 1st Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60608. Odd-numbered taxicab medallion licenses are scheduled for renewal appointments in January and February 2021. The deadline to complete this year taxicab medallion license renewal, including payment of all applicable license renewal fees, must be paid by February 28, 2020. Licensees must be prepared with required documents to renew their taxicab medallion license at their scheduled renewal appointment date and time. The list of scheduled taxicab medallion license renewal appointment date and time are as follows. A request to change a scheduled license renewal appointment date and time must be made in writing by e-mailing [email protected]. All requests for new appointments must be submitted at least two weeks prior to the scheduled appointment. Multiple accounts may be consolidated for same date and time renewal appointments. Requests for consolidated renewal appointments must be made in writing by e-mailing [email protected] on or before December 22, 2019. PV Number Company Name License Management Desc Affiliation Affiliation Description First Appoinment Date and time 2 YC1 LLC Taxi Works, LLC YELLOW_CAB Yellow Cab Association 02/06/2020 14:15:00 4 YC1 LLC Taxi Works, LLC YELLOW_CAB Yellow Cab Association 02/06/2020 14:15:00 6 YC1 LLC Taxi Works, LLC YELLOW_CAB Yellow Cab Association 02/06/2020 14:15:00 8 YC2 LLC Taxi Works, LLC YELLOW_CAB Yellow Cab Association 02/04/2020 09:45:00 10 YC2 LLC Taxi Works, LLC YELLOW_CAB Yellow Cab Association 02/04/2020 09:45:00 14 REX 3 INC.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules and Regulations for Taxicab Medallion License Holders
    City of Chicago Department of Consumer Services Public Vehicle Operations Division RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR TAXICAB MEDALLION LICENSE HOLDERS Effective April 17, 2006 Amended October 20, 2006 Amended September 24, 2007 Amended May 1, 2008 City of Chicago Richard M. Daley Mayor Norma I. Reyes Commissioner Upon adoption of these Rules and Regulations for Taxicab Medallion Owners, these Rules and Regulations will supersede the previously issued Rules and Regulations for Public Passenger Vehicle License Holders, as amended. RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR TAXICAB MEDALLION LICENSE HOLDERS AUTHORITY AND USAGES WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 2-24, § 2-24-040 of the Municipal Code of Chicago, the Commissioner of Consumer Services is authorized to issue rules and regulations necessary or proper to accomplish the purposed of Chapters 9-112 and 9-104 of the Municipal Code of Chicago, and is further authorized to make reasonable administrative and procedural regulations or rules interpreting or clarifying the requirements which are specifically prescribed in Chapters 9-112 and 9-104 of the Municipal Code of Chicago; and WHEREAS, Section 9-112-060 (e) of the Municipal Code of Chicago allows the Commissioner to, by rule, require fleet owners of more than 15 licenses to provide vehicles equipped with wheelchair access; and WHEREAS , Section 9-112-060 (h) of the Municipal Code of Chicago allows the Commissioner to, by rule, require fleet owners of more than 50 licenses to provide Alternative Fuel Vehicles. WHEREAS, Section 9-112-300 of the Municipal Code of Chicago allows Advertising Displays only with a written permit from the Department of Consumer Services, these regulations explain the procedures and requirements to obtain an advertising display permit.
    [Show full text]
  • Economics of the Taxi Industry: an Uber Shake-Up 1
    Running Head: ECONOMICS OF THE TAXI INDUSTRY: AN UBER SHAKE-UP 1 Economics of the Taxi Industry: An Uber Shake-up Steven Rahel Spring 2016 Honors Thesis Advisor: Dr. David Finoff University of Wyoming ECONOMICS OF THE TAXI INDUSTRY: AN UBER SHAKE-UP 2 Introduction The taxicab has long been one of the dominant forms of transportation in cities around the world. By the late 1930s, most cities had placed government regulations on the taxi industry to combat the oversupply of taxis. This was meant to stabilize prices, ensure the safety and quality of taxis, and give drivers a livable wage. However, these government regulations restricted entry through capping the supply of taxis, leading to the creation of local taxi monopolies in some cities (Snead, 2015). Taxi companies have been benefitting from a lack of competition in the for-hire transportation market until recently. The major challenge that the taxi industry is currently facing is the technological innovation of ride-sharing applications. Ride- sharing companies, namely Uber and Lyft, operate by using a smartphone app to match consumers requesting rides with drivers that will take them there. Since its inception in 2009, Uber has gained significant market share in the United States and worldwide (Uber, 2016). Downs (2015) writes about a key distinction between ride-sharing app’s and taxi’s, “Uber doesn’t provide its own vehicles or operators, but works with existing licensed drivers” (p. 1). This distinction allows Uber to be viewed as a matchmaker rather than a transport provider, which has kept Uber unregulated, much to the displeasure of the taxi industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxi and Limousine Commission Meeting June 23, 2016
    Taxi and Limousine Commission Meeting June 23, 2016 1 1 NEW YORK CITY 2 TAXI & LIMOUSINE COMMISSION 3 PUBLIC HEARING 4 5 June 23, 2016 10:10 a.m. 6 7 33 Beaver Street New York, New York 8 9 B E F O R E: 10 MEERA JOSHI, Chair and Chief Executive Officer 11 CHARLES WILSON, General Counsel 12 13 Board of Commissioners: 14 BILL AGUADO EDWARD GONZALES 15 LAUVIENSKA POLANCO NORA C. MARINO 16 FRANK V. CARONE JACQUES JIHA 17 18 19 Reported By: Nicole Ellis 20 21 22 STENO-KATH REPORTING SERVICES, LTD. 23 139 MAMARONECK AVENUE MAMARONECK, NEW YORK 10543 24 (212) 95-DEPOS (953-3767) or (914) 381-2061 FACSIMILE: (914) 722-0816 25 Email: [email protected] Taxi and Limousine Commission Meeting June 23, 2016 2 1 SPEAKERS: 2 Keith Kerman, DCAS 3 Anna Caffarelli, DOHMH 4 Inspector Scott Hanover, NYPD 5 Juan Martinez, DOT 6 William Paholak 7 Steven Shanker, Livery Roundtable 8 Tejinder Singh 9 Nat Goldbetter, LOMTO 10 Placida Robinson, Independent Medallion Drivers Association 11 12 Nino Herbids 13 Gladys Barrera 14 Sergio Cabrera 15 Gladys Tahada 16 Carolyn Protz 17 Jean Pierra Nixon 18 Surjit Singh Gill 19 Michael O'Laughlin, Cab Riders United 20 Avik Kabessa, Carmel 21 Adalgiesa Sanchez, Driver 22 Julia Kite, Transportation Alternatives 23 David Beier, President & Counsel - Committee for Taxi Safety 24 25 (Speakers continued on following page.) Taxi and Limousine Commission Meeting June 23, 2016 3 1 SPEAKERS: (Continued) 2 James Rahming, Driver 3 Frank Osei-Bonsu, Driver 4 Peter M. Mazer, MTBOT 5 Mohamed Boukerche 6 Osman Chowdhury, United Taxi Drivers Association 7 Fernando Garcia Asotiny 8 Jose R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of New York Taxicab Medallions
    Problematic Private Property: The Case of New York Taxicab Medallions Katrina Miriam Wymant Yellow taxicabs are an iconic symbol of New York City. Almost as well- known as the City's yellow taxis are the valuable licenses that vehicles must have in order to be used as taxis. Often called medallions, these licenses constitute a form of private property. They are routinely bought and sold, leased, used as collateralfor loans, and count as assets in bankruptcy. This Article emphasizes the political character of property rights in the modern state through a case study of why New York taxi medallions continue to exist. Prominent explanations of the evolution of property rights imply that they are a distinct category of rights that emerge organically within society because their benefits exceed their costs. This Article takes a decidedly more regulatory view of property rights as top-down creations of the state. As instruments of the state, property rights arise and persist from political decision-making processes influenced by interest group pressures. This avowedly regulatory conception of property rights suggests that we likely have both efficient and inefficient property rights because there is no necessary correspondence between what is cost-beneficial for society as a whole and the outcomes of political decision-makingprocesses. This Article argues that New York taxicab licenses are an instance of inefficient private property rights sustained by political decision-makingprocesses subject to pressuresfrom powerful interest groups. T Professor,
    [Show full text]
  • NYC Taxi Medallions
    LEONARD N. STERN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS NEW YORK UNIVERSITY NYC Taxi Medallions Ever asked yourself | perhaps on a rainy afternoon in Manhattan | why there aren'tt more taxi cabs in New York City? Part of the answer is that, in order to drive a cab in the Big Apple you need a license, a medallion. Currently, there are 13,237 medallions in the city (see Exhibit 1). New medallions, when issued, are sold at auction. But the issue of new medallions is a rare event. More common is for existing medallions to be transacted. In August 2011, three taxi medallions sold for record high prices | including two for a whopping $705,000. Many thought this to be a very high price, especially considering \speculation that the good-as- gold aluminum plates would plummet in value because of Mayor Bloomberg's five-borough taxi plan."1 But a few weeks later a blogger was asking What on earth is going on with the price of taxi medallions in NYC? Two of them just sold for $1 million apiece | thats a 42% increase just since August, when conventional wisdom had it that $705,000 was a top tick and that medallions would soon plunge in value.2 According to the New York Times, The sale was the culmination of decades of astonishing growth for the humble medallion, which is nailed to the hood of every yellow cab in the city. When New York issued its first batch of medallions in 1937, the going price was $10 even, or $157.50 in today's dollars.3 Exhibit 1 plots the historical average price of medallions since World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxi Medallions. $1.04 Billion We Believe the Continued Rise in Taxi Medallion Prices Indicates the Strength of That Market, Even During at Year End
    What investment outperforms Taxi Facts the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the Standard & Poor’s 500, the Nasdaq Average, Real Estate, and even Gold over the years? 2009 Annual Report Taxi Medallions. Medallion Financial Corp. 437 Madison Avenue 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Medallion Financial Corp. Toll Free: 877 MEDALLION www.medallion.com ...over the years since 1947, taxi medallions have a compound annual growth rate of 9.8%. Who is the recognized leader in the taxi medallion industry, currently with almost $1 billion* in taxi medallion loans and small business loans under management? * The Company has originated $3.5 billion in loans since it’s IPO in 1996. Medallion Financial. Medallion Financial Corp. 2009 Annual Report Taxi Facts How many taxi trips are taken each day in New York? What is the value of a corporate Data from taxi meters has What is the highest price shown that there are about ever paid for an individual medallion in New York City? New York medallion? In New York a corporate taxi fleet The individual New York medallion averaged... 450,000 Medallion hit cab rides a day in New York. $600,000 $775,000 an all time record in the month of December in December of 2009. What is the highest 2009, and increase of An increase of 3.7 percent from price ever paid for 9.1% from $550,000 a corporate New in December 2008. $747,000 in December 2008. York Medallion? $800,000 for a corporate Taxi Facts: Medallion sale in early 2010. Passengers spend more than What is the average Medallion value in the four largest markets? $1 billion The average value is about $500,000 on taxi rides in NYC each year.
    [Show full text]