New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Mohsen Abdel-Aziz, Lic. No. 684944
DECISION
The judge’s decision is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
Mohsen Abdel-Aziz (“the respondent”) filed an appeal of the decision of Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) Inayat Ilahi Shaikh, dated August 18, 2008, wherein the ALJ found the
respondent in violation of Rule 6-16C11 issued in connection with summons no. 1200556A. The
ALJ imposed a penalty of $50.
The decision appealed from states, in relevant part, that the inspector testified the respondent was
parked in a no standing zone for about five minutes. The respondent testified he had to pick up a
person from the hotel but there was no evidence a passenger was at the scene. The respondent
presented photographs of no standing loading zone signs, but the ALJ did not find them relevant.
The ALJ concluded the respondent violated the rule and therefore imposed a fine.
The respondent’s appeal was filed, pursuant to Rule 8-13A, on September 4, 2008. On appeal,
the respondent argues that he was standing in front of the hotel for two to three minutes waiting
for the doorman to bring the passengers’ luggage; he argues that “loading” does not mean “active
loading” unless the sign says so; the respondent presented a photograph of a sign which states
“active loading” and a sign that states “loading” to support his argument; the respondent argues
that the passenger did show up while the officer was writing the ticket; he argues that “loading”
means you can wait to load passengers and luggage; and he states that the judge admitted at the
hearing that it is okay to stand the curb for the hotel while waiting for a passenger.
The Commission did not file a response to the respondent’s appeal.
ANALYSIS
New York City Traffic Rule § 4-08(c)(5) governs No Standing - Hotel Loading Zone, and
states:
No person shall stand or park a vehicle in such zone except temporarily for the
purpose of and while actually engaged in receiving or discharging passengers and
their personal baggage at hotels.
I listened to the recording of the hearing. At the hearing, the respondent submitted no proof at
that he was “actually engaged in receiving or discharging passengers and their personal
baggage.” The recording of the hearing reveals that he testified he was waiting for a doorman to
load two passengers’ luggage while they waited in the hotel for the doorman to finish doing so.
But this testimony was not supported at the hearing or on appeal by the doorman or any other
1
Stationary vehicle violation.
New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Mohsen Abdel-Aziz, Lic. No. 684944
person. Therefore, the ALJ held that no passengers were at the scene. The respondent’s
argument that there is a difference between “actual loading” signs and “loading” signs is not
correct, according to the New York City Traffic Rule § 4-08(c)(5) (stated above). On appeal, the
respondent submits a hand written letter from a person who states they were the passenger at the
time the ticket was issued. The letter is a photocopy and it is not sworn or notarized. The
respondent did not present this letter at the hearing, so it cannot be looked at now. Evidence
brought for the first time on appeal will not be reviewed (see, Taxi & Limousine Commission v.
Walid K. Alshyab, Lic. No. 690508 [September 30, 2008]).
A respondent will often disagree with a TLC judge’s decision that his testimony was not truthful
or logical or that the testimony of a witness against him was truthful. Often a respondent will
disagree with whether there is enough documentary evidence (papers, photographs, diagrams) to
prove or disprove the violation or make out a defense. These are not very often bases upon which
to win an appeal.
The law requires the TLC judge to base his or her decision on substantial evidence (reasonable
proof of all the elements of the charges) (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v.State Div. of Human
Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]; Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Balbir Singh, Lic. No. 5016472
[June 27, 2008]). Substantial evidence may be based on the believability of witnesses and
documents (evidence). The audiotape reveals that the evidence presented by the officer was that
the respondent’s vehicle standing for six minutes without receiving or discharging any
passengers. It is clear from the ALJ’s decision that the ALJ found the respondent in violation
because he believed the officer’s testimony. The decision is based on substantial evidence and
therefore shall not be overturned. The respondent’s remaining arguments were considered and
determined not be a basis to reverse the ALJ’s decision.
Dated: February 3, 2009
Charles R. Fraser
Deputy Commissioner for Legal Affairs
By: Daniel J. Curry
Administrative Law Judge, Appeals Unit
Printed on paper containing 30% post-consumer material.