- 2 -

Taxi and Limousine Comm’n v. Alexandridis

OATH Index No. 202/08 (Aug. 28, 2007)

In fitness proceeding, respondent was found to have been convicted of driving while impaired. ALJ recommended revocation of respondent’s license.

______

NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS

In the Matter of

TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION

Petitioner

-against-

WILLIAM ALEXANDRIDIS

Respondent

______

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JOHN B. SPOONER, Administrative Law Judge

This license revocation proceeding was commenced by the Taxi and Limousine Commission against respondent, William Alexandridis, pursuant to Administrative Code section 19-505(l) and the For Hire Vehicle Rules, title 35, rule 8-15(a) of the Rules of the City of New York (RCNY). Petitioner alleges that respondent is unfit to retain his license due to his conviction for driving while impaired.

A hearing was held before me on August 2, 2007. Petitioner’s proof established that respondent was convicted of driving while impaired. Respondent admitted having several drinks before driving his vehicle and being convicted of driving while impaired. At the request of this tribunal, counsel for petitioner submitted a letter on August 21, 2007, offering further legal support for petitioner’s contention that respondent should be found unfit.

For the following reasons, I find that respondent drove a vehicle while impaired by alcohol and recommend that his for-hire vehicle (“FHV”) license be revoked.

ANALYSIS

In this case, respondent seeks a finding that respondent is unfit to retain his FHV license because he was convicted of driving while impaired. As explained below, I conclude that respondent’s license should be revoked based upon public safety rather than on unfitness grounds.

Petitioner’s evidence showed that respondent was issued an FHV driver’s license on February 13, 2006. He was later arrested on December 23, 2006, for operating a motor vehicle with .08 of 1 per cent alcohol in his blood, driving while intoxicated, and making an unsafe turn or failing to give a signal (see Pet. Ex. 1). His driver’s license was suspended from December 23, 2006, until March 22, 2007. He was convicted on his guilty plea on March 2, 2007, of driving while impaired under Vehicle and Traffic Law section 1192(1) and received a $500 fine and a conditional discharge. He also pled guilty in 2006 to two minor traffic infractions for which he was fined $40 each.

Respondent admitted that he went out with friends for a holiday dinner and drank “a few beers and wine with dinner.” He then drove his vehicle toward his home only less than a mile and one-half away and was stopped because he allegedly failed to signal. He acknowledged that he had made a “big mistake” and should not have driven that night. He asserted that this incident was a single blemish on an otherwise distinguished career, since he worked for 33 years as a senior Con Edison engineer. He planned to retire and intended to work as a taxi driver during his retirement. He paid all of his fines and went to the drinking driver program as required. He contended that his character was otherwise very good.

Based upon this uncontroverted evidence, I find that, on December 23, 2006, respondent drove a vehicle while impaired in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law section 1192(1) and was convicted of this violation based upon a guilty plea on March 2, 2007. He received a $500 fine and a conditional discharge.

This case is one of several recent fitness cases referred to this tribunal by petitioner, contending that a conviction of driving while impaired establishes unfitness. The law relied upon by petitioner provide that for-hire drivers must meet six requirements, including holding a chauffeur’s license, being at least 19 years’ old, being of “sound physical condition,” being fingerprinted, and not being addicted to “drugs or intoxicating liquors.” The petition here alleges that respondent fails to meet the fifth requirement, which states that drivers must “be of good moral character.” NYC Admin. Code § 19-505(b)(5) (Lexis 2007). The only evidence produced at the hearing consisted of respondent’s conviction of driving while impaired.

The hearing evidence was insufficient to establish that respondent lacks good moral character. To the contrary, I find that respondent’s admirable candor in admitting that he drank a considerable amount of alcohol and that this was a “big mistake” shows good moral character. See Taxi and Limousine Commission v. Fuentes, OATH Index No. 201/08 (Aug. 28, 2007); Kahlon v. McGrath-McKechnie, Index No. 115734/98-001 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co., Oct. 16, 1998).

Even though the proof was insufficient to establish that respondent is unfit, the facts establish that his license should nevertheless be revoked based upon violation of other rules. Under Commission rule 6-14, an FHV driver who has held his license for less than one year may have the license revoked or renewal “automatically barred” if he is “convicted of driving while impaired by alcohol or drugs.” See 35 RCNY § 6-14(b)(2) (Lexis 2007); see also Admin. Code § 19-512.1(a) (Lexis 2007) (Commission may revoke any license where the licensee constitutes “a threat to the public health, or safety”).

I found persuasive counsel’s argument that respondent’s continued possession of an FHV driver’s license threatens the public safety. A probationary FHV driver who is found to have driven while impaired by alcohol poses a serious threat to the safety of future passengers as well as to the general public and should unquestionably have his license revoked. See Fuentes, at 6.

I also note that there is no prejudice to respondent in losing his license based upon petitioner’s public safety analysis because respondent was on sufficient notice that the prior conviction would be the basis for petitioner’s request to revoke his license. See Fuentes, at 6.

I thus find that respondent’s driving while impaired violated Commission rule 6-14(b)(2) and section 19-512.1(a) of the Administrative Code and that his license should be revoked.

FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The allegations should be sustained in that, on December 23, 2006, respondent drove a vehicle while impaired by alcohol in violation of Administrative Code sections 19-512.1 and 19-505 (l).

RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner has requested that respondent’s FHV license be revoked for this violation. It is true that respondent has no prior violations. However, as pointed out by petitioner’s counsel, respondent had been issued his license less than one year prior to the incident, making his lack of a prior violation history deserving of little weight.

The threat to the public safety posed by an FHV driver operating a motor vehicle while impaired is severe. I therefore recommend that respondent’s license be revoked.

John B. Spooner

Administrative Law Judge

August 28, 2007

SUBMITTED TO:

MATTHEW W. DAUS

Commissioner

APPEARANCES:

MARC T. HARDEKOPF, ESQ.

Attorney for Petitioner

WILLIAM ALEXANDRIDIS

Respondent Pro Se