1
Taxi Limousine Comm’n v. Claude
OATH Index No. 1833/08 (Mar. 10,2008)
Evidence established that respondent, recently convicted of reckless endangerment in the second degree for an incident involving driving his car, lacked fitness to maintain a taxi driver’s license. License revocation recommended.
______
NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS
In the Matter of
TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION
Petitioner
-against-
OLMAN CLAUDE
Respondent
______
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOHN B. SPOONER, Administrative Law Judge
Petitioner, the Taxi and Limousine Commission, brought this fitness proceeding against respondent, Olman Claude, a licensed driver of a for-hire vehicle, under its rules and New York City’s Administrative Code. 35 RCNY § 8-15(a); Admin. Code § 19-521(1). Based upon respondent’s conviction for reckless endangerment in the second degree, in violation of section 120.20 of the Penal Law, petitioner contends that respondent no longer meets the requirements for licensure (ALJ Ex. 1).
The case was originally scheduled for a hearing on February 11, 2008. On that date, respondent’s attorney obtained an adjournment in order to do further preparation. On February 13, 2008, respondent’s attorney requested further time to obtain the minutes of respondent’s guilty plea allocution, and the case was taken off calendar. The case was later restored to the calendar and, on March 6, 2008, a hearing was held before me with respondent and his attorney. At the request of respondent, a Creole interpreter participated by telephone and translated the participants’ statements back and forth between English and Creole. At the hearing, petitioner relied upon documentary evidenceto establish respondent’s prior conviction. Respondent offered no evidence, but argued that petitioner’s proof was inadequate to establish that respondent was unfit or was a threat to the public.
For the reasons below, I find that respondent’s criminal conviction renders him unfit for licensure and recommend revocation of his license to operate for-hire vehicles.
ANALYSIS
Respondent has had a for-hire vehicle license since 1984 (Pet. Ex. 3). On December 2, 2007, respondent was arrested in Brooklynfor driving while intoxicated (Pet. Ex. 1). Police Officer Alnaldo Rodriguez stated that he observed respondent make a left turn without signaling at an intersection where left turns were illegal. When the officer turned on the lights and siren of his marked police vehicle, respondent drove away “at a high rate of speed, while swerving back and forth,” going the wrong way down a one-way street. When Officer Rodriguez was finally able to stop respondent, he observed that respondent had “slurred speech, red water eyes, and an unsteady gait.”
According to the arrest notification (Pet. Ex. 1) received by the Commission, Officer Rodriguez initially arrested respondent for driving while intoxicated under Vehicle and Traffic Law section 1192 (3). However, the next day, a criminal complaint (Pet. Ex. 3), based upon sworn statements from Police Officer Alnaldo Rodriguez, charged respondent with reckless endangerment in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.20), unlawfully fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle in the third degree (Penal Law § 270.25), driving in the opposite direction on one-way roadway (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1127 (A)), driving in violation of traffic control signs (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 (D)), failure to give appropriate signal to turn (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 (A)), and reckless driving (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212). No driving while intoxicated charge was ever pursued and, at the hearing, petitioner did not allege that respondent was intoxicated at the time of his arrest.
As indicated in a certificate of disposition from the criminal court (Pet. Ex. 2), on January 28, 2008, respondent pled guilty to second degree reckless endangerment and received a sentence of a conditional discharge after one year and four days of community service. According to the plea minutes (Resp. Ex. A), respondent was also assessed $210 in court charges.
Here, petitioner alleged that, because of his recent conviction for second degree reckless endangerment, respondent is no longer qualified tomaintain his license to drive for-hire vehicles, See 35 RCNY § 8-15(a),and that his license should be revoked due to the threat to the public safety. Admin. Code § 19-512.1 (Commission may revoke license “for good cause shown relating to a threat to the public health, or safety”). See generally, Taxi and Limousine Comm’n v. Corrales, OATH Index No. 259/08, at 4-5 (Aug. 24, 2007). Specifically, petitioner asserts that respondent is a threat to the public based upon the facts of the incident three months ago, when respondent fled from a marked patrol car and drove his vehicle recklessly the wrong way down a one-way street. Petitioner’s attorney contended that the fact that the incident was recent, was driving-related, and involved fleeing from law enforcement all supported the conclusion that respondent should be considered a threat to the public safety and that his license should be revoked.
I must agree with petitioner that the facts surrounding respondent’s crime raise serious concerns about respondent’s judgment and the safety of passengers and other members of the public, should respondent be permitted to continue to drive for-hire vehicles. The evidence indicates that, following the unfortunate turn down the one-way street, respondent took flight at a high speed. He then entered a guilty plea to the crime of second degree reckless endangerment (see Resp. Ex. A). All of these facts suggest a far more serious and sustained act of recklessness than that alluded to by respondent’s attorney. See Taxi and Limousine Comm’n v. Ojo, OATH Index No. 949/94 (Aug. 4, 1994) (license revoked where driver was convicted of second degree reckless endangerment and criminal mischief for driving vehicle on sidewalk). The evidence that respondent had been drinking, even if insufficient to prove legal intoxication, also provided a plausible motive for respondent to avoid being stopped by a police officer and gave further support to the conclusion that respondent is irresponsible and heedless of his general obligations as a driver, let alone the much greater duties expected of a taxi driver.
Respondent made much of the fact that he has been a licensed driver since 1984 and that his overall Commission and Department of Motor Vehicles driving records (Pet. Ex. 4) are moderately good. However, respondent’s driving history offers inadequate grounds to mitigate the penalty here, since he has a 2005 conviction for speeding, a 2004 conviction for an improper turn, as well as four2006 convictions of Commission rules regarding trip sheets (Pet. Ex. 4). It is also probably true that respondent’s loss of his for-hire taxi license will create a financial hardship for him and his family, as respondent remarked at the hearing. However,the plight of his family does not warrant endangering the public by permitting him to continue to drive.
Respondent’s remaining arguments as to why he should not be found to be a public safety threat were also unpersuasive. Respondent’s attorney repeatedly characterized the incident as reflecting merely “one mistake” which did not warrant revoking respondent’s for-hire license. But the proof here, including the uncontroverted and sworn statements of Officer Rodriguez, demonstrate, not a momentary lapse of judgment, but a sustained and deliberate effort to break the law and avoid being caught. After failing to signal, respondent drove his vehicle “at a high rate of speed” the wrong way down a one-way street and apparently attempted to elude the marked police car following him. This conduct raises obvious concerns as to whether respondent will obey basic traffic laws and, if caught committing violations, may try to thwart traffic enforcement efforts by unsafe driving.
Respondent’s counsel also makes much of respondent’s supposed lack of unawareness that his guilty plea might result in having his Commission driver’s license revoked. As pointed out by petitioner’s counsel, Commission rule 8-16 (c) expressly provides that any “arrest on criminal charges” will result in the immediate suspension of a driver’s license. Moreover, insofar as counsel seems to suggest that respondent’s guilty plea was less than voluntary, the plea minutes indicate that respondent assured the sentencing judge that he was pleading guilty to reckless endangerment voluntarily because “on December 2, 2007, you were . . . involved in actions that were endangering – reckless with regard to the public” (Resp. Ex. A at 4-5). It seems apparent that respondent entered his guilty plea voluntarily and knowing that his plea would result in a conviction of a crime, albeit a class A misdemeanor. It may very well be that respondent did not anticipate that he would risk losing his City taxi driver’s license, since he had been able to retain his Department of Motor Vehicles license. However, this fact provides no reason to preserve the taxi license of a driver proven to be a public safety threat.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Petitioner proved that respondent is unfit to maintain his for-hire license and a risk to the public safety due to his conviction of second degree reckless endangerment, pursuant to 35 RCNY rule 8-15(a) and Administrative Code section 19-512.1.
RECOMMENDATION
I therefore recommend that respondent’sfor-hire license be revoked.
John B. Spooner
Administrative Law Judge
March 10, 2008
SUBMITTED TO:
MATTHEW W. DAUS
Commissioner
APPEARANCES:
MARC T. HARDEKOPF, ESQ.
Attorney for Petitioner
M. DANIEL BACH, ESQ.