Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Royal Monger Transportation Inc., Lic. No. C24632
DECISION
The appeal of Royal Monger Transportation Inc. (the “respondent”) is denied.
The decision of the Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
On May 18, 2009, the respondent appealed ALJ Gary Grassi’s decision dated April 22, 2009. In
that decision, the ALJ found the respondent in violation of Rule 6-12C1 as stated in summons
number 1225436A and Rule 6-12K(2)2 as stated in summons number 1225438A.
The ALJ’s decision states:
I find the owner guilty of both summonses. The TLC witness stated he saw a
FHV and stopped it. The driver said he was working since 10 P.M. the previous
evening and that he [rents] the car for $400 per week from Royal Monger. The
inspection sticker on the car was overdue and the driver had no TLC license. The
owner claims the car was in a body shop for repairs at the time. He submits a
letter from the body shop owner alleging that an employee took the car home for
personal use and denies working for hire. I do not believe the owner’s evidence
for numerous reasons, among them alleged photos of the significant damage to
the vehicle which the inspector did not see.
The respondent argues on appeal:
I strongly believe that the Judge’s decision should be reversed because this
vehicle was involve[d] in an accident on 11/18/08 (police report provided) and
was in an auto repair shop from 11/18/08 to 12/15/08 waiting for insurance
inspection and body repairs. During this period Royal Monger Transportation
Inc. had no control over this vehicle. Allstate Insurance Company inspected the
vehicle at the body shop on 12/09/08. I had no idea that a mechanic was using
this vehicle to go home. I have the following documents to prove my innocence,
(1) police report, (2) photographs of the damage[d] vehicle, (3) repair bill from
the auto body shop showing the date when the vehicle entered and came out, (4)
notarized letter from the manager of the body shop explaining why the
summons[es] were issue[d], and (5) documents from Allstate Insurance company
stating the date of loss and date of inspection, also a copy of the check Allstate
paid for the damages of the vehicle.
1
Failure of base and for-hire vehicle owner to have for-hire vehicle inspected every four months. Operating for hire
with an expired inspection sticker.
2
Base owner and vehicle owner dispatched affiliated for-hire vehicle operated by driver without valid for-hire
vehicle driver’s license.
Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Royal Monger Transportation Inc., Lic. No. C24632
The Taxi and Limousine Commission (the “Commission”) did not file a response to the
respondent’s appeal.
ANALYSIS
The ALJ’s decision was correct.
An ALJ’s credibility findings will not be disturbed on appeal if those findings are based on
substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may
accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact (see Taxi & Limousine Commission v.
Exec U Car Limo Inc., Lic. No. 5179939 [September 27, 2007]).
The ALJ did not believe the owner’s argument and evidence that the vehicle was in a body shop
at the time of the stop and that an employee took the car home for personal use. The ALJ’s
decision is based on substantial evidence in the form of testimony from the inspector found
credible by the ALJ. The inspector testified that the vehicle’s inspection sticker was expired and
the driver did not have a Commission license on the date of the stop and told him that he was
working for hire and he rents the vehicle from Royal Monger Transportation. This is sufficient
to find violations of Rules 6-12C and 6-12K(2).
Dated: June 15, 2010
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.