-2-

Taxi & Limousine Comm'n v. Martinez

OATH Index No. 1499/09 (Nov. 24, 2008)

After default hearing, respondent found guilty of failing to comply with a Commission directive. Suspension of respondent’s for-hire vehicle license until respondent complies with the directive and a $200 fine recommended.

______

NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS

In the Matter of

TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION

Petitioner

- against -

CARLOS MARTINEZ

Respondent

______

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ALESSANDRA F. ZORGNIOTTI, Administrative Law Judge

The Taxi and Limousine Commission commenced this proceeding alleging that respondent, Carlos Martinez 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).

Respondent failed to appear for a hearing scheduled for November 21, 2008. Petitioner submitted proof of service sufficient to demonstrate that it sent the petition and notice of hearing to respondent at the address that respondent provided to the Commission (Pet. Exs. 1, 2). Such evidence established the jurisdictional prerequisite for finding respondent in default and the hearing proceeded in the form of an inquest. At the hearing, petitioner relied upon documentary evidence.

I find the evidence sufficient to prove that respondent failed to comply with the Commission’s directive. I recommend that respondent’s for-hire vehicle license be suspended until he complies with the directive and that a $200 fine be imposed.

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 May 27, 2008, directing him to submit a clearance letter regarding his child support obligations by June 10, 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 24, 2008 (Pet. Ex. 3).

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 provide documentation requested by petitioner 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.

Alessandra F. Zorgniotti

Administrative Law Judge

November 24, 2008

SUBMITTED TO:

MATTHEW W. DAUS

Commissioner/Chair

APPEARANCES:

MARC T. HARDEKOPF, ESQ.

Attorney for Petitioner

No Appearance for Respondent