Opinion
No. 402938/09.
2010-07-27
In the Matter of the Application of Alexandro N. GARCIA, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, Respondent.
Alexandro N. Garcia, New York, for petitioner. Scott Glotzer, Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, for respondent.
Alexandro N. Garcia, New York, for petitioner. Scott Glotzer, Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, for respondent.
BARBARA JAFFE, J.
By notice of petition dated August 14, 2009, petitioner moves pursuant to CPLR 7803 for an order vacating an administrative determination made against him by respondent. Respondent opposes the petition.
I. BACKGROUND
The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) has effected rules and regulations for the licensing of drivers of For Hire Vehicles (FHV). Pursuant to 35 RCNY § 8–02, an Adjudication Tribunal may determine issues related to TLC licensees and non-licensees, and pursuant to subsection d, Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) “shall render final decisions that shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law, except with respect to the following proceedings, in which case the decision of the ALJ shall be a recommended decision:(i) Licensing determinations as to the fitness of licensees or license applicants, which shall be recommended decisions as set forth in § 8–15 ...”
Pursuant to 35 RCNY 8–15(e):
The ALJ shall issue a Recommended Decision which shall include a determination as to the respondent's fitness to possess a license. If the respondent is or has ever been a licensee, the Recommendation shall be issued to the Chairperson ... The Chairperson, Deputy Commissioner for Licensing, or designee, may accept, reject or modify said Recommendation. The decision of the Chairperson, Deputy Commissioner for Licensing, or designee shall constitute the final determination of the Commission.
In October 2003, petitioner was approved for a FHV driver's license. (Verified Answer, dated May 21, 2010, Exh. A). In September 2005, his license was suspended after he failed a drug test by testing positive for codeine. ( Id.). On September 15, 2005, an ALJ conducted a fitness hearing to determine whether petitioner was fit to retain his license in light of the positive drug test result. ( Id., Exh. B). On October 7, 2005, the ALJ recommended to the TLC Chairperson that petitioner's license be revoked as petitioner's explanation for the drug test result was invalid and incredible. ( Id.). By letter dated November 23, 2005, the TLC Commissioner/ Chair accepted the ALJ's recommendation and revoked petitioner's license. ( Id.).
On May 27, 2006, petitioner was cited for using a mobile phone while driving, and on April 12, 2007, he was convicted of disobeying a traffic device, resulting in a two-point penalty on his regular license. ( Id.).
In 2007, petitioner applied for a new FHV license. ( Id., Exh. D). On May 8, 2007, a fitness hearing was held, and by Recommendation dated May 23, 2007, the ALJ recommended the approval of petitioner's license application, finding that petitioner had “sufficiently demonstrated remorse as well as accepted responsibility for his prior misconduct.” ( Id.). However, by letter dated July 31, 2007, the TLC Commissioner/Chair rejected the ALJ's recommendation and denied petitioner's application on the ground that petitioner's license had been revoked for failing a drug test and that following the revocation, he had been convicted of using a mobile phone while driving, indicating that he had “trouble following all of the required rules and regulations, a key component of licensure fitness.” ( Id.).
In 2008, petitioner again applied for a FHV license. ( Id.). On June 3, 2008, a fitness hearing was held, and by Recommendation dated June 13, 2008, the ALJ recommended that petitioner's license application be approved. ( Id.). However, by letter dated July 14, 2008, the TLC Commissioner/Chair rejected the ALJ's recommendation and denied the application, again based on petitioner's prior license revocation and his convictions for using a mobile phone while driving and disobeying a traffic device. ( Id .). The Commissioner/Chair stated that he “[saw] little evidence of rehabilitation and [found] that [petitioner] cannot be trusted at this time to follow all of the rules and regulations associated with holding a TLC license.” ( Id.).
In 2009, petitioner again applied for a FHV license. ( Id., Exhs. C, D). On March 30, 2009, a fitness hearing was held, and by Recommendation dated April 13, 2009, the ALJ recommended approval of petitioner's license application. ( Id., Exh. I). However, by letter dated June 25, 2009, the TLC Commissioner/Chair rejected the ALJ's recommendation and denied the application, again finding that based on the prior revocation and two driving violations, petitioner “cannot be trusted at this time to follow all of the rules and regulations associated with holding a TLC license.” ( Id., Exh. J).
II. CONTENTIONS
Petitioner is apparently contesting the denials of his license applications in 2007 and 2009 on the ground that the ALJs recommended that the applications be granted but the TLC Commissioner/Chair denied them, annexing in support only the 2007 and 2009 ALJ recommendations and TLC Commissioner/Chair letters. (Verified Petition, dated May 12, 2010). He argues that without a FHV license, he cannot work to support himself and his family. ( Id.).
Respondent contends that the Commissioner/Chair's decision was not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, or an abuse of discretion as he reasonably determined, based on petitioner's record, that petitioner was not fit to hold a FHV license. (Respondent's Memo. of Law, dated May 21, 2010 [Memo] ). It observes that the ALJs' recommendations are not binding on the Commissioner/Chair, who has the authority to make the final determination, and asserts that the fact that the Commissioner/Chair disagrees with the recommendations does not make his determinations irrational.
III. ANALYSIS
An administrative decision may be judicially reviewed as to whether “a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed.” (CPLR 7803[3] ). The appropriate standard of review is whether the administrative determination is supported by a rational basis. (Matter of Nehorayoff v. Mills, 95 N.Y.2d 671 [2001] ). If the court determines that the administrative determination has a rational basis, the court's inquiry is finished; it may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency. (Paramount Communications, Inc. v. Gibraltar Cas. Co., 90 N.Y.2d 507 [1997] ). Moreover, where a determination is supported by a rational basis, “an administrative agency's construction and interpretation of its own regulations and of the statute under which it functions are entitled to great deference.” (Arif v. New York City Taxi and Limousine Commn., 3 AD3d 345 [1st Dept 2004] ).
It is undisputed that pursuant to TLC's rules and regulations, the ALJs' recommendations for approval of petitioner's license applications are not binding on the Commissioner/Chair, who has the authority to make the final determination as to whether to approve or deny the applications. Thus, the Commissioner/Chair's disagreement with the ALJs' recommendations does not render his decisions irrational or indicate that he abused his discretion. ( See Milano v. New York City Taxi and Limousine Commn., 305 A.D.2d 326 [1st Dept 2003], app dism100 N.Y.2d 614,lv denied5 NY3d 707 [2005] [respondent's Commissioner entitled to disagree with ALJ and reach contrary finding]; see also Jenkins v. New York City Dept. of Transp., 26 AD3d 176 [1st Dept 2006] [Commissioner not bound by ALJ's findings and was free to reach own decision as long as based on substantial evidence] ).
The Commissioner/Chair's denials were based on petitioner's prior license revocation and the fact that in the two to three years between the revocation and the new license applications, he had committed two driving violations. Absent any dispute that petitioner had failed the drug test and committed the driving violations, the Commissioner/Chair's determination that petitioner was not fit to hold a FHV license is rational. ( See Mankarios v. New York City Taxi and Limousine Commn., 49 AD3d 316 [1st Dept 2008] [since respondent's determination had rational basis, court was foreclosed from substituting its judgment for that of agency]; see eg Spencer v. New York City Taxi and Limousine Commn., 30 AD3d 300 [1st Dept 2006] [petitioner's prior operation of FHV vehicle without license and many recent traffic violations provided rational basis for respondent's decision to deny him license] ).
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby
ADJUDGED, that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed.