- 3 -

Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Jimenez

OATH Index No. 552/09 (Sept. 8, 2008)

At a default hearing, petitioner established that respondent failed to comply with a directive requesting documentation regarding child support obligations. Suspension of for-hire driver’s license until compliance with directive and $200 fine recommended.

______

NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS

In the Matter of

TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION

Petitioner

-against-

JOSE JIMENEZ

Respondent

______

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

FAYE LEWIS, Administrative Law Judge

The Taxi and Limousine Commission brought this proceeding against for-hire vehicle driver Jose Jimenez under its rules and the New York City Administrative Code. 35 RCNY § 8-02(c); Admin. Code § 19-506(a) (Lexis 2008). Petitioner alleged that respondent failed to comply with a directive to supply documentation concerning his child support obligations. 35 RCNY § 6-18(g).

Upon respondent’s failure to appear for a hearing scheduled for September 2, 2008, petitioner submitted proof of service sufficient to show that it sent the petition and notice of hearing to respondent at the address that he provided to the Commission (Pet. Exs. 1, 2 & 3). Based upon this evidence, respondent was found in default and the hearing proceeded in the form of an inquest.

For the reasons below, I find that respondent failed to comply with a directive to provide documentation concerning his child support obligations and recommend suspension of his for-hire vehicle license pending compliance with the directive, as well as a $200 fine.

ANALYSIS

Licensed drivers of for-hire vehicles are required to comply with directives from the Commission and its representatives. 35 RCNY § 6-18(g). Here, petitioner mailed respondent a written notice, dated April 30, 2008, directing him to submit a clearance letter regarding his child support obligations by May 14, 2008. The notice, captioned “Important Notice! Immediate Action Required,” advised respondent how to obtain the clearance letter, and informed him that his TLC license would be suspended if he failed to submit the clearance letter by the date indicated (Pet. Ex. 1). An employee familiar with petitioner’s records submitted an affidavit stating that respondent had not complied with the directive as of July 29, 2008 (Pet. Ex. 4).

Thus, the undisputed evidence established that respondent violated section 6-18(g) of petitioner’s rules.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

1.  Petitioner properly served respondent with the petition and notice of hearing.

2.  Respondent failed to comply promptly with the Commission’s directive, in violation of 35 RCNY § 6-18(g).

RECOMMENDATION

The penalty for the proven charge is a $200 fine and suspension until respondent complies with the Commission’s directive. 35 RCNY § 6-22. At the hearing, petitioner requested the full penalty, which is appropriate, in the absence of any mitigating factors of explanation for respondent’s failure to comply with the directive. Accordingly, I recommend suspension of respondent’s for-hire vehicle license until he complies with petitioner’s directive to submit the clearance letter regarding his child support obligations, plus a $200 fine.

Faye Lewis

Administrative Law Judge

September 8, 2008

SUBMITTED TO:

MATTHEW W. DAUS

Commissioner

APPEARANCES:

MARC T. HARDEKOPF, ESQ.

Attorney for Petitioner

No Appearance by or for Respondent