Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Maciej Ciechorski, Lic. No.5214509
BACKGROUND
Maciej Ciechorski (“the respondent”) filed an appeal of the decision of Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) Margery Budoff dated February 7, 2008, wherein the ALJ found the respondent
guilty of a Rule 2-21B(2) charge that was issued in connection with summons no.1159145A.
The decision appealed from states, in relevant part, as follows:
Inspector testified that driver made illegal U-turn on Roosevelt Ave. near Main St.
where there was double line. Driver admitted making U-turn but remises defense
on testimony and photographs purporting to depict area which show worn but still
visible paint of double yellow lines and short disruptions due to pothole repair and
manhole cover. Driver testified that he thought the double yellow line was not in
effect in that area due to faint markings as well as fact that there was no additional
signage prohibiting U-turns. I do not find this testimony persuasive inasmuch as
entire length of Roosevelt Ave. was two-way, divided by double lines, despite
areas of wear and no additional signage is required to reiterate city-wide law
prohibiting U-turns.
The respondent’s appeal was filed, pursuant to Rule 8-13A, on February 20, 2008. On appeal,
the respondent argues as follows:
Judge’s decision should be reversed or modified because from my evidence,
photographs, one clearly sees that double line is neither double or yellow. It
is single, broken and reduced to smudge on Roosevelt Ave. Street signs, to be
enforcable (sic) must be maintained. Neglect of one city agency cannot lead
To endangering of street traffic and ticketing drivers who have trouble to correctly
read those signs.
The Commission did not file a response to the respondent’s appeal.
ANALYSIS
The ALJ properly found a violation of rule 2-21B(2). Respondent admitted he made a U-turn
but alleges he was unaware of the fact that there was a double yellow line because of the worn
condition of the painted lines and they appeared to be broken lines rather than solid double lines.
An examination of the photographs submitted by respondent discloses that the painted lines are
worn in certain areas. However, the photographs also show the double solid lines and it is
obvious that the worn lines, which are in the area of what appears to be a pothole repair and a
manhole cover, were part of the double lines and not separate broken lines and that respondent
had to be aware of this. The audio recording discloses that the ALJ found that within the City of
New York a vehicle may not cross a double yellow line in order to make a U-turn. In her
decision she also concluded that no signs were necessary to prohibit the U-turn. The New York
City Traffic Rules provide that no vehicle shall make a U-turn on a divided highway, except
Printed on paper containing 30% post-consumer material.
Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Maciej Ciechorski, Lic. No.5214509
where permitted by sign or at the direction of a law enforcement officer (34 RCNY 4-07[h][2]).
A divided highway is one which is divided into one or more roadways by an intervening space,
physical barrier, or clearly indicated dividing section so constructed as to impede vehicular
traffic (34 RCNY 4-07[h][1]). Section 118 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law defines a highway as
the entire width between the boundary line of every way publicly maintained when any part
thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular traffic. Roosevelt Avenue, being
divided by double yellow lines, is a divided highway and U-turns are impermissible on it. A sign
is not required to prohibit U-turns but only to permit them. The ALJ was therefore correct in
holding that a U-turn was impermissible, and no signs prohibiting such a turn were required.
Respondent also claims on the appeal that the lines were not yellow. However, in his own
testimony he referred to yellow lines. Furthermore, he never raised this at the hearing and he may
not raise it for the first time on appeal (see, Bingham v. New York City Transit Authority, 99
NY2d 355, 359 [2003]; Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Dragan Raguz, Lic. No. 5133356
[October 14, 2008]; Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Walid Alsheyab, Lic. No.690508
[September 30, 2008]; Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Sajjad Shah, Lic. No. 674269
[September 30, 2008].
DECISION
The decision is affirmed.
Dated: October 16, 2008
Charles R. Fraser
Deputy Commissioner for Legal Affairs
By: Thomas Bonanno
Administrative Law Judge, Appeals Unit
2
Printed on paper containing 30% post-consumer material.