Taxi & Limousine Commission v.Rami Ribi Babayoff,Lic. No.266895
DECISION
The appeal ofRami Ribi Babayoff (the “respondent”) isdenied.
The decision of the Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”)isaffirmed.
BACKGROUND
On July 9, 2010, the respondent appealedALJGarret Rubin’sdecision datedJune 21, 2010. In that decision, the ALJ found the respondent in violation of Rule2-07A[1]stated in summons numberCD90003.
The ALJ’s decision states:
I find the driver guilty of violating Rule 2-07A and order a suspension of his TLC License for 30 days.
The summons states that the driver received 8 points on his DMV going back 15 months from 2/10/09. The TLC submitted a certified DMV abstract to verify this claim.
The abstract shows the following DMV violations during this 15 month period:
On 2/10/09 Disobeying a traffic device 2 points;
On 3/26/08 Speed in zone 62/40 6 points.
The driver took an accident reduction course 6/28/09.
The driver said the summons should be dismissed because the abstract was not current. This claim is rejected because there is no indication that the abstract contained incorrect information.
The driver also claimed the summons should be dismissed because the accident prevention course reduced his point total to 4.
He said his 8 points should be reduced 1st to 6 because the Disobeying traffic device 2-point violation is pending appeal.
This claim is rejected because the pending appeal of a DMV moving violation i[s] not a legal basis to reduce the point total.
With the accident prevention course taken into account the driver has 6 points and is therefore suspended 30 days.
Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Rami Ribi Babayoff, Lic. No. 266895
On appeal, the respondent argues:
1-Decision rendered by the Judge relied on old DMV report of 8/1/2009. Since then, an appeal was filed on one of the summonses that made up the total 6 points. The results of the appeal were not available at the time of the hearing.
2-Further adjudication may also take place (Article 78) should the DMV appeal [be] negative.
3-TLC instituted this program in 1999 and waived enforcement until 5/1/20009. Any enforcement of this regulation should commence from date of 5/1/2009. As such I will be below the enforcement threshold.
The Taxi & Limousine Commission(the “Commission”) did not file a response to the respondent’s appeal.
ANALYSIS
The ALJ’s decision is correct.
The ALJ correctly ruled that the DMV certified copy of the abstract provided at the hearing contains sufficient credible information. Thus, the respondent’s unsupported claim that the abstract was not current does not establish grounds for reversal.
The respondent’s argument that the ALJ incorrectly calculated the number of points on his DMV license, because he is appealing one of the DMV convictions, is also without merit. The mere filing of an appeal of a DMV conviction does not result in removal of these points for purposes of determining the respondent’s critical driver status (see Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Henry C. Desmangles, Lic.No. 436133 [November 5, 2009]).
In addition, the Commission’s rules do not provide a limitations period for enforcement, but require a timely hearing be held within one year after the issuance of a summons or notice of violation. There does not appear to be any ruling limiting the Commission’s time to seek suspension or revocation under the critical driver program and Rule 2-07A broadly provides that “the Commission may at any time review the fitness of a driver,” provided that a driver cannot be suspended or have his license revokedbased on a violation carrying points which occurred prior to February 15, 1999. No authority is cited that would impose a time limitation of the Commission’s enforcement proceedings. In this case the time lapse between the violations and the issuance of the summons (less than 6 months after the most recent summons on February 10, 2009) cannot be considered unreasonable or excessive. An argument of prejudice also cannot be
This document was printed on paper containing 30% post-consumer material.
Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Rami Ribi Babayoff, Lic. No. 266895
established in this situation, in which the driver was enabled to retain his license for a longer period of time (see Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Amranul H. Mojumder, Lic. No. 486957 [September 22, 2008]).
Dated: August 9, 2010
Charles R. Fraser
Deputy Commissioner for Legal Affairs
By: R. Elliott
Administrative Law Judge, Appeals Unit
This document was printed on paper containing 30% post-consumer material.
[1] Critical Driver – license suspension.
This document was printed on paper containing 30% post-consumer material