Taxi & Limousine Commission V. Gurjinder Singh, Lic. No. 5206112

Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Gurjinder Singh, Lic. No. 5206112

Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Gurjinder Singh, Lic. No. 5206112

DECISION

The appeal of Gurjinder Singh (the “respondent”) is denied.

The decision of the Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) is affirmed.

BACKGROUND

On September 2, 2011, the respondent appealed ALJ Ronald Abraham’s decision dated August 31, 2011. In that decision, the ALJ found a violation of NYC Administrative Code section 19-504G,[1] as set forth in summons number UR0002773, and revoked the respondent’s vehicle license.

The ALJ’s decision states, in relevant part:

The respondent testified that he was out of the country attending to his ill family member and therefore did not affiliate. He also testified that he was not driving his car during this time.

According to Rule 19-504G, the exception allowed for not affiliating in time is if the owner-driver is disabled due to illness.

As the respondent was not disabled due to illness, I find the respondent guilty.

On appeal, the respondent argues that the ALJ should have dismissed the summons because he was out of the country for his father’s illness, at an inspection the TLC issued a diamond for the vehicle with the same plates despite the nonuse for 60 days, and the summons should have been issued under Rule 6-11A or C or the equivalent of the new rules.

The Taxi and Limousine Commission (the “Commission” or the “TLC”) did not file a response to the respondent’s appeal.

ANALYSIS

The ALJ’s decision is correct.

Administrative Code 19-504G directs the Commission to revoke a vehicle license for nonuse if the vehicle has not been operated for 60 consecutive days. The only exception to revocation for nonuse based on illness is for the owner-driver’s disabling illness. There is no exception for a relative’s illness, as the ALJ correctly held. The respondent did not challenge the Commission’s evidence that he had not operated his vehicle for 60 consecutive days. In fact, he submitted proof that he was out of the country from May 12, 2011 to July 29, 2011. There also is no exception to Administrative Code section 19-504G for being out of the country (see Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Oumar V. Diallo, Lic. No. 5371367 [April 11, 2011]).

Although the ALJ used the term “affiliate” in his decision, Section 19-504G expressly prohibits only nonuse, not “non-affiliation.” In any event, the ALJ found that the respondent did not drive his car for the more than 60 consecutive days that he was out of the country.

The respondent’s argument that the Commission issued a diamond at inspection despite the nonuse is not a defense; nor is it persuasive. The respondent’s evidence that he had the vehicle inspected on August 4, 2011 and was issued a diamond may not be considered for the first time on appeal (see Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Chaudhry R. Hussain, Lic. No. 2C64 [Apr. 15, 2009]; Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Walid K. Alsheyab, Lic. No. 690508 [Sept. 30, 2008], citing Bingham v. New York City Transit Authority, 99 NY2d 355 [Feb. 20, 2003]).

Even if this evidence could be considered on this appeal, it does not negate or excuse the respondent’s nonuse. On May 27, 2011, the Commission issued a directive advising the respondent that it would revoke his license for nonuse. Thus, as of May 27, the respondent was on notice that his license would be revoked. He is charged with notice of the directive since Rule 59-20A(1), (2) requires FHV owners to report mailing address changes within 10 days and to accept Commission communications sent to the last mailing address provided. In any event, since the respondent returned to this country on July 29, he had five full days to read the directive before he had his car inspected on August 4, 2011.

Similarly, the respondent’s argument that because the vehicle was licensedhe should have received different treatment and been charged under different Rules ignores the purpose of Administrative Code section 19-504G, which is to revoke a license for nonuse, not to impose a penalty for the failure to have the vehicle licensed.

The ALJ’s finding was based on substantial evidence, and the revocation was proper.

Dated: September 15, 2011

OATH Taxi and Limousine Appeals Unit

By: Karen Hutson

Administrative Law Judge

cc: Kenneth Lawrence, Industry Representative

Printed on paper containing 30% post-consumer material.

[1]Revocation of any vehicle license for 60 consecutive days of nonuse or upon failure to find replacement vehicle within 120 days of vehicle sale. Exception when proof that owner-driver is disabled.