Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Tadeusz Walczak Lic. No. 833627
DECISION
The appeal is denied.
The decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) finding respondent guilty of
the Rule 6-16F violation is correct and is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
On October 7, 2008 respondent, pursuant to Rule 8-13A, filed an appeal of the decision of
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Eileen Caulfield dated September 9, 2008 wherein the ALJ
found respondent in violation of the Rule 6-16F1 charge in connection with summons no.
1194039A.
The decision appealed from states in relevant part:
Inspector testified credibly that respondent/driver responded to his street hail, that
they discussed his destination, that respondent agreed to take him to 84th Street,
and that inspector was told to “get in.”
The respondent, represented on appeal by Marc Weinrich, Esq., argues that the ALJ
erred in finding him guilty. He states in relevant part:
The respondent was not acting as a for-hire driver, no price was given. No pick
up, no solicitation occurred. . . .Driver did not want to take inspector to
destination and did not ask for money.
The Taxi and Limousine Commission (“Commission”) did not respond to the appeal.
1
Street hail
This document was printed on paper containing 30% post-consumer materials.
Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Tadeusz Walczak Lic. No. 833627
ANALYSIS
The fact that no price was given does not determine whether this was a street hail (see, Taxi &
Limousine Commission v. Jaswinder Ghotra, Lic No 5045562 [September, 2007]). Here,
respondent stopped his vehicle upon being hailed and discussed a trip with a person he did not
stop to pick up through prearrangement. After agreeing to a drop off location, there was an
invitation to “get in.” It was implicit in the bargain that this was a trip for hire (see, Taxi and
Limousine Commission v. New Tuxedo Park Limousine & Car Inc., Lic. No. 5223089 [October
4, 2006]).
The law requires the ALJ to base his or decision on substantial evidence, i.e., some proof of all
the essential aspects of the case (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v.State Div. of Human Rights,
45 NY2d 176 [1978]; Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Balbir Singh, Lic. No. 5016472 [2008]).
The standard of review of anALJ’s decision on appeal is substantial evidence. Where there is
substantial evidence, the Appeals Unit will not re-consider credibility issues such as whether the
people who testified at the hearing were telling the truth or whether the respondent presented
useful supporting documents (see, Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 NY2d 436 [1987]; see also, Matter of
Ifrah v.Utschig, 98 NY2d 304 [2002]; also see generally, Matter of Ortiz-Arroyo, NYLJ, Sept. 5,
2003, at 18, col 3).
Entrapment occurs when a person is persuaded to act while having no predisposition to do so.
(see, Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 [1992]). Here, there is substantial evidence
under the circumstances to support the ALJ’s finding of a violation based on the respondent’s
admitted stop in response to his observation of someone hailing him.
There is no reason to disturb the ALJ’s decision on appeal.
Dated: March 20, 2009
Charles R. Fraser
Deputy Commissioner for Legal Affairs
By: Mark Snyder
Administrative Law Judge, Appeals Unit
This document was printed on paper containing 30% post-consumer materials.