Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Roman Florkiewicz, Lic. No. 867781
DECISION
The appeal of the Taxi & Limousine Commission (the “Commission”) is granted.
The decision of the Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) is reversed. The matter may be
scheduled for a new hearing.
BACKGROUND
On April 21, 2011, the Commission appealed the decision of ALJ Margery Budoff dated March
25, 2011. In that decision, the ALJ dismissed the Rule 6-16U(1)1 violation as stated in summons
number 1330223A.
The ALJ’s decision states:
Inspector testified that he observed vehicle come to stop in loading zone at airport
and immediately discharge passenger. He observed that driver was wearing
earpiece which was a Bluetooth.
Driver testified that he was not wearing earpiece while in vehicle but that he only
put it on after dropping off passenger in order to notify base he had completed
call.
I credit inspector's testimony that driver was wearing earpiece connected to
electronic device but that driver was legally standing at the time inspector
observed him because he was in an unloading zone in the process of discharging a
passenger. Therefore, he was "legally standing" and thus is not guilty of the
violation.
On appeal, the Commission argues that the ALJ erred in dismissing the summons because it is
legal for a taxi driver to be on his cell phone while in a loading zone. The Commission further
argues that the ALJ’s findings are not based on a preponderance of the evidence and are not
supported by substantial evidence.
Roman Florkiewicz (the “respondent”) did not file a response to the Commission’s appeal.
1
Using a portable or hands free electronic device while operating a for-hire vehicle, unless lawfully standing or
parked.
This document was printed on paper containing 30% post-consumer material
Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Roman Florkiewicz, Lic. No. 867781
ANALYSIS
The ALJ’s correctly dismissed the summons.
Vehicle and Traffic (“VTL”) section 4-11 (c) permits a for-hire vehicle (“FHV”) to “…
expeditiously pick up or discharge passengers at the curb in areas where standing or parking is
prohibited.”
Rule 6-16C(1) states that “A driver shall operate his for-hire vehicle at all times in full
compliance with all … laws, rules or regulations governing stationary vehicles.”
Rule 6-16U states that “A driver shall not use a telephone while operating a for-hire vehicle,
unless such for-hire vehicle shall be lawfully standing or parked.”
The Commission argues that the respondent was expeditiously discharging/picking up while
using his cell phone while parked in a loading zone. The term expeditiously generally refers to
doing something in an efficient manner and with speed.
In addition, The ALJ’s determination that the respondent was lawfully in the loading zone is
correct. The respondent could not use his cell phone unless he was discharging his passenger
while in the loading zone. This is what the ALJ found had happened. Here, the ALJ credited the
inspector’s testimony and found that the respondent was wearing an earpiece while legally
standing.
Therefore, the ALJ’s decision is affirmed.
Dated: September 20, 2011
OATH Taxi and Limousine Appeals Unit
By: L. March
Administrative Law Judge
This document was printed on paper containing 30% post-consumer material