Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Lekamlage C. Abeykoon, Lic. No. 5173669
Taxi Limousine Commission v. Lekamlage C. Abeykoon, Lic. No.5173669
DECISION
The appeal of Lekamlage C. Abeykoon (the “respondent”) is denied.
The decision of the Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
On March 30, 2011, the respondent appealedthe decision of ALJ Eryn Defontes dated March 3, 2011. In that decision, the ALJ found the respondent guilty of violating Rules 2-21A[1], 2-61A(2)[2] and 2-21B(3)(vi)[3] as stated in summons number396053C.
The decision stated that the complaining witness credibly testified that the respondent drove into the driveway of a hotel, without yielding the right of way to the complaining witness and her two children, and his taxicab brushed against the body of her child. The complaining witness also testified that she yelled “hey” at him and he cursed at her. She called 311 and the police responded. The respondent claimed the child struck his car with an umbrella. He also claimed that the police never came to the scene.
On appeal, the respondent argues that the incident occurred while his passenger wasprocessing his credit card. The complaining witness was demanding he get out of his car and he got out. He also claims that the “officer” told the ALJ that the respondent picked up his next passenger three minutes after the incident but he actually made a pickup 14 minutes after the incident. He also states that the complaining witness said he brushed her daughter but then said it could have been the noise from the umbrella.
The Taxi and Limousine Commission (the “Commission”)did not file a response to the respondent’s appeal.
ANALYSIS
It can be inferred that on appeal, the respondent disputes the ALJ’s credibility findings.An ALJ’s findings will not be disturbed on appeal if those findings are based on substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact (see Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Exec U Car Limo Inc., Lic. No. 5179939 [September 27, 2007] citing300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176[July 13, 1978]). Where evidence conflicts and there is room for choice, the ALJ’s decision will be upheld since the ALJ observed the demeanor of the witnesses and weighed the evidence presented (see Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 NY2d 436 [1987]; Matter of Ifrah v.Utschig, 98 NY2d 304 [2002]; see generally Matter of Ortiz-Arroyo, NYLJ, Sept. 5, 2003, at 18, col 3). There is therefore no basis for disturbing the ALJ’s credibility findings
There being no other issues raised by the respondent, the decision is affirmed.
Dated: April 21, 2011
Taxi and Limousine Commission Appeals Unit
By:Thomas Bonanno
Administrative Law Judge, Appeals Unit
This document was printed on paper containing 30% post-consumer material.
[1]A driver shall not operate a taxicab in such a manneror at a speed which unreasonably endangers users of other vehicles, pedestrians, or his passengers..
[2] Action against the best interests of the public.
[3] Failing to yield right of way.