Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Santosh Ruwali, Lic. No. 5256344
Taxi & Limousine Commission v.Santosh Ruwali, Lic. No. 5256344
DECISION
The appeal ofSantosh Ruwali(the “respondent”) is denied.
The decision of the Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
On December 9, 2011, the respondent appealedALJMichelle Manzione’sdecision dated November 10, 2011. In that decision, the ALJ found the respondent in violation ofRule 54-13A(1)[1]as stated in summons number013622C.
The ALJ’s decision states, in relevant part:
Taxi Dispatcher . . . (TD) testified that . . . driver stopped his taxi inside the pedestrian crosswalk . . . after pointing out that he was in the crosswalk, the driver became verbally abusive by using curse words towards TD. . .
The driver denied the allegations. . . . the TD and driver engaged in a disagreement regarding whether this taxi was blocking a pedestrian crosswalk. Driver stated that the trunk of his vehicle was about a half-foot into the pedestrian walkway. The driver attempted to exit the vehicle to take a picture of where his car was in the crosswalk, but TD pushed driver back into the car (and also punched him). . . .
I find it undisputed that the driver stopped with his taxi partially obstructing a pedestrian crosswalk. . . .
On appeal, the respondentargues, in relevant part, that he does not consider himself guilty of partially obstructing the pedestrian crosswalk.
The Taxi and Limousine Commission (the “TLC” or the “Commission”)did not file a response to the respondent’s appeal.
ANALYSIS
The ALJ’s decisionis correct.
Rule 54-13A(1) provides:
Comply with Traffic Laws. Taxicab Drivers must comply with all applicable traffic laws, rules, and regulations. Taxicab Drivers are subject to additional fines and penalties that will be imposed by the Commission for violating the traffic laws as follows: . . . Laws, rules or regulations governing stationary vehicles.
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] citing 300 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]). Here, the ALJ credited the taxi dispatcher’s testimony that he observed the respondent’s taxicab stopped in a pedestrian crosswalk and credited the respondent’s admission that the trunk of his vehicle was approximately half of a foot inside the pedestrian walkway. The ALJ’s findings are based on credibility and are supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ correctly found the respondent in violation of Rule 54-13A(1).
Dated:January 17, 2012
OATH Taxi and Limousine Appeals Unit
By:D. Rivers
Administrative Law Judge
- 1–
Printed on paper containing 30% post-consumer material.
[1]Stationary traffic violation.