Taxi & Limousine Comm'n v. Manhattan Checker Management Corp.
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Manhattan
Checker Management Corp.
OATH Index No. 2216/21 (Aug. 6, 2021)
Agent dispatched vehicles for hire without a license since February
4, 2021. For 106 days of unauthorized activity, between February
4, 2021 and May 21, 2021, the agent should be fined $10,600. In
addition, the Commission should issue and post an order requiring
the agent to immediately discontinue the unlicensed activity, as well
as an order sealing the agent, to be lifted if the agent renews its
license.
______________________________________________________
NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS
In the Matter of
TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION
Petitioner
-against-
MANHATTAN CHECKER MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
Respondent
______________________________________________________
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FAYE LEWIS, Administrative Law Judge
Petitioner, the Taxi and Limousine Commission (“TLC” or “Commission”) brings this
proceeding against respondent, Manhattan Checker Management Corp. (“respondent” or “the
agent”), holder of agent license number A0332, under its rules and the New York City
Administrative Code. 35 RCNY § 59B-11; Admin. Code §§ 19-506(a), 19-511(a), and 19-528(a)
(Lexis 2021). Petitioner alleges that since February 4, 2021, respondent has failed to renew its
for-hire vehicle agent license and has operated without a license between February 4, 2021 and
May 21, 2021, a total of 106 days. Petitioner seeks a fine of $100 each day of these dates, in
addition to a fine for “further unlicensed activity.” Petitioner also seeks to order the agent to stop
operating without a license and to padlock the premises (ALJ Ex. 1). 1
1
As further discussed, there were some discrepancies between the relief sought in the petition and the relief sought at
trial. The petition alleges unauthorized activity through May 21, 2021, but in its opening statement, petitioner-2-
At a trial held through videoconference because of the COVID-19 pandemic, petitioner
and respondent both presented documentary evidence. In addition, petitioner called Leo Roland,
a medallion owner whose medallion respondent managed, while respondent called Domingo
Jiminez, the agent’s manager and one of its principals. On its rebuttal case, petitioner also called
Nelly Rodriguez, supervisor of TLC’s Agent Licensing Unit, and Tat Chun Lau, an analyst with
TLC’s Business Practices Accountability Unit (“BPAU”). The record was left open until July 14,
2021, for both parties to submit supplemental exhibits.
For the reasons below, I find that, since February 4, 2021, respondent has failed to renew
its for-hire vehicle agent license and has operated as a for-hire agent without a license. I
recommend that respondent be fined $10,600, or $100 a day between February 4, 2021, and May
21, 2021. I also recommend that the Commission issue and post an order requiring respondent to
immediately discontinue its unlicensed activities, as well as an order sealing the agent because of
the unlicensed activity.
ANALYSIS
Section 59B-11 of the Commission’s rules forbids the operation of a for-hire vehicle agent
without a valid Commission license. See also Admin. Code §§ 19-506(a), 19-511(a), and 19-
528(a).
Respondent admitted that it continued to operate as an agent despite failing to renew its
license (Tr. 7, 36, 37, 98). However, respondent asserted that it made a “good faith” attempt at
compliance and that its premises should not be padlocked (Tr. 95).
Petitioner’s records showed that the agent has two principals, Raba Abramov, President,
and Domingo Jiminez, Manager (Pet. Ex. 3). The agent manages 33 medallions, none of which
are owned by its principals (Pet. Exs. 3-6). The agent’s license expired on January 15, 2021, and
on February 4, 2021, its license status changed from “current” to “failed to renew.” As of June
16, 2021, respondent had still failed to renew its license (Pet. Exs. 1, 2, 4, 10). According to trip
records and client payment receipts received by TLC’s technology service provider, respondent
contended that respondent had operated without a license through July 7, 2021, the day before trial (Tr. 6). The
petition sought fines continuing past May 21, 2021, but in summation, petitioner requested a fine of $100 a day for
“at least 106 days of unlicensed activity,” or $10,600, without specifying any other fine which it was requesting (Tr.
106).-3-
continued to receive funds from the operation of its 33 medallions from February 4, 2021, through
May 21, 2021, even though it did not have a license (Pet. Exs. 7-9, 11).
In addition, Mr. Roland testified that he saw the agent operating when he visited it on
February 17, 2021 and May 4, 2021. He explained that respondent had managed his medallion
since about 2015. He visited the agent on these two dates because he had received tax delinquency
notices from the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance for quarterly taxes owing
for the trip surcharge on his medallion. According to Mr. Roland, under his lease with the agent,
respondent was responsible for paying these taxes, but did not do so. This resulted in New York
State sending the notices to him as the medallion owner (Tr. 12-13, 20). Mr. Roland testified that
on both February 17 and May 4, he saw yellow taxis coming and going from the agent or remaining
at the agent to have repairs done (Tr. 14, 17-18).
Mr. Jiminez, the agent’s manager, testified that he received a letter from TLC dated
February 17, 2021 indicating that two required items were missing from the agent’s renewal
application and had to be submitted in order for the application to be processed (Tr. 45; Pet. Ex.
3). The missing items were a business lease affirmation or deed and statements of business records,
including a list of persons with ownership interests, titles, and shares (Resp. Ex. A). According to
Mr. Jiminez, respondent’s landlord was required to submit the affirmation and delayed doing so
because of a dispute with respondent. However, the landlord submitted the affirmation, most likely
in March 2021, and the agent submitted the other missing information as well, months ago (Tr. 47,
48). Mr. Jiminez testified that TLC never told the agent to stop operating and the first time he
learned that TLC wanted the agent to stop operating was when he received a hand-delivered
notification from TLC on June 9, 2021, which appears to be the notice of hearing and petition (Tr.
48). He stated that he did not know why the renewal license was never issued because he had
complied with every requirement for renewal (Tr. 48-49). He confirmed that he has access to the
agent’s e-mail, to which TLC sends communications (Tr. 54).
I permitted petitioner to call two rebuttal witnesses because respondent had not produced
the February 17, 2021 letter before trial, as required (Tr. 49). Both Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Lau
testified that agents must meet renewal requirements set out by the licensing unit and must also be
cleared for renewal by BPAU. Agents must remit proof to BPAU of remission of MTA taxes and
congestion surcharges. BPAU informs the licensing unit of the results of its review, and the
licensing unit cannot renew an agent’s license without BPAU clearance (Tr. 61, 62, 64, 72, 85).-4-
Agents have always been required to pay taxes and surcharges, but BPAU’s review of remission
as a condition of license renewal only went into effect about a year ago (Tr. 62, 54, 68, 86).
Here, it was undisputed that respondent has not provided BPAU with the required tax
documentation for 2020 and that BPAU had not cleared the agent for license renewal (Tr. 63, 83).
In addition, according to Ms. Rodriguez, respondent had also failed to submit accurate corporate
minutes, which is a condition of renewal (Tr. 60).
Mr. Lau explained that BPAU sent a number of e-mails to respondent and other agents
beginning November 24, 2020, stating that their renewal license applications had been received
and they were required “to submit proof that all taxes and surcharges collected on behalf of a
Medallion Owner . . . have been remitted to the appropriate parties.” The November 24 e-mail
specified that this included the state taxicab trip tax in the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation
District, as well as the Congestion Surcharge. BPAU sent follow-up e-mails on December 4, 2020,
December 11, 2020, and December 15, 2020 (Tr. 76; Pet. Ex. 12). The December 4 e-mail stated
that, for purposes of renewal, TLC would accept and consider proof of tax filings and installment
payment agreements. Similarly, the December 11 e-mail stated that because of the pandemic’s
“unprecedent impact” on the taxi industry, TLC would accept proof of the agent’s state tax filing
for all required taxes and surcharges, to be submitted by December 15. The December 15 e-mail
stated that it was a “final reminder” for agents to submit such documentation (Pet. Ex. 12).
On December 15, 2020, Mr. Abramov, the agent’s President, sent an e-mail to BPAU
indicating, “As per requested, Please find Application and other documents pertaining [sic] the
Agent License Renewal. Please advise” (Pet. Ex. 12). Mr. Lau testified that respondent’s e-mail
and attachments did not address the issue of taxes (Tr. 77). Thus, on December 16, 2020, BPAU
sent an e-mail to the agent indicating that respondent’s submission “does not comply with TLC’s
request of [sic] the required documentation for the proof of remission of taxes and surcharges.”
The e-mail indicated that TLC would accept various types of proof, including tax filing
confirmations, payment receipts, and cancelled checks, and specified,
“The approval of your license renewal application is contingent on your submission of the proof
of remission of taxes and surcharges (including MCTMT/MTA taxes and Congestion Surcharges
paid on behalf of Medallion Owners)” (Pet. Ex. 12).
On January 13 and January 24, 2021, BPAU notified respondent that it was among the
agents who had failed to remit taxes and congestion surcharges collected on behalf of the medallion-5-
owners whom it managed (Tr. 78-82; Pet. Exs. 13, 14). The January 13 e-mail reiterated that TLC
was “willing to work” with agents who intend to pay back any unpaid taxes and surcharges, and
that agents who had not submitted proof of remission “must contact TLC Prosecution to discuss
conditions for your renewal.” The e-mail provided a telephone number and e-mail address for a
TLC attorney (Pet. Ex. 13). The January 14 e-mail, which included a copy of the January 13 e-
mail, indicated that TLC had not yet received any documentation relating to payment of 2020 taxes
and congestion surcharges, and stated, “To be eligible to work with TLC Prosecution on your
license renewal, you must provide TLC with some documentation indicating 2020 payments or
2020 tax filings” (Pet. Ex. 14). According to Mr. Lau, as of the trial date, the agent still had not
submitted tax documentation for 2020 (Tr. 83).
Over objection by petitioner,2 I permitted respondent’s counsel to introduce two documents
post-trial showing that on June 24, 2021, it asked the New York State Department of Taxation and
Finance for a waiver of penalties and interest. The documents showed that the agent owed the
state over $148,000 in taxes, interest, and penalties. Except for approximately $2,300 in unpaid
taxes, interest, and penalties for the tax period ending February 29, 2012, the unpaid monies were
for the tax periods ending March 31, 2020, June 30, 2020, September 30, 2020, December 31,
2020, and March 31, 2021. Of this, slightly over $113,000 constituted overdue taxes, with the
remainder penalties and interest (Resp. Ex. B). In the June 24, 2021 letter sent to NYS Assessment
Receivables, Mr. Abramov asked that penalties and interests on the overdue taxes be waived
because the decreased number of drivers and passengers during the pandemic had caused the agent
to suffer economic hardship, and because of the high insurance and maintenance costs for the fleet
(Resp. Ex. C).
The petition is sustained. As respondent conceded, and as petitioner’s proof established,
respondent has failed since February 4, 2021, to renew its agent license and it has operated as an
agent without a license. BPAU repeatedly advised respondent, beginning in November 2020, that
it had to show proof of remittance of taxes and surcharges in order to renew its license. Respondent
2
For completeness of the record, I permitted respondent’s representative to introduce such evidence post-trial as he
argued in summation that respondent had made a good faith attempt to comply with TLC’s licensing requirements,
without having submitted any evidence in support of this claim during trial. It seemed unwarranted to penalize
respondent for this omission, particularly when petitioner’s counsel failed to demonstrate any prejudice from the
admission of the exhibits post-trial (Tr. 92-96).-6-
did not do so. Nor did respondent submit proof of payment of 2020 taxes, which BPAU stated
might be sufficient for renewal. Respondent’s efforts in June 2021 to obtain a waiver of interest
and penalties from the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance does not constitute a
defense to its failure to renew its license, nor to its operation without a license.
FINDING AND CONCLUSION
Respondent operated a for-hire agent without a valid TLC
license, in violation of Commission rule 59B-11(a), and sections
19-511 and 19-506 of the Administrative Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner seeks a fine of $100 a day, for “at least 106 days of unlicensed activity,” or
$10,600 (Tr. 106), along with an order requiring respondent to discontinue the unlicensed activity,
and an order sealing or padlocking the premises. See Admin. Code §19-528 (b).
Respondent admitted that it had failed to renew its license and had continued to operate as
an agent without a license. However, respondent asserted that padlocking was not appropriate.
Respondent’s representative contended in summation that respondent had made a good faith effort
to comply with the TLC licensing mandate, that during the pandemic it was impossible to get
through to the Department of Finance, and that the agent has been operating for 30 years and has
always been in good standing with TLC (Tr. 89, 96). Respondent’s representative also argued that
the requirement to remit payment of taxes was a new licensing requirement and that as of February
17, 2021, the date of the email from the licensing unit (Resp. Ex. A), 59 of 66 licensed agents had
not completed the renewal application process (Tr. 90).
Respondent’s arguments were not persuasive. First, many of the arguments assumed facts
not in evidence. There was no evidence at trial regarding difficulty accessing the Department of
Finance, respondent’s previous licensing history, or how many agents had failed to complete the
renewal application process as of February 17, 2021. Thus, these arguments were not considered.
It is true, as respondent’s representative contended, that BPAU’s review of tax remittance
was added to the renewal process only recently. It is also true that in June 2020, the agent took
steps to try to reduce its tax arrears by asking for a waiver of interest and fees. However, Mr. Lau
testified credibly that the agent never responded to the numerous emails asking it to show that it-7-
had paid 2020 taxes and surcharges, or alternatively, that it had filed tax returns or entered into an
installment agreement. Mr. Jiminez did not explain why the agent failed to respond to these emails.
Indeed, he testified that he did not know why the agent’s license was not renewed, because he had
complied with every requirement for renewal. This was not true, based upon Mr. Lau’s and Mr.
Rodriguez’s testimony. The agent’s failure to respond to repeated requests for proof that it had
paid or at least filed 2020 taxes was inexplicable.
In addition, it was undisputed that the agent continued to operate without a license, even
after receiving notification from BPAU in January 2021 that it was among the agents who had
failed to remit taxes and surcharges and needed to contact TLC to discuss conditions for its
renewal. Mr. Jiminez did not explain why the agent continued to operate without a license. His
suggestion that he thought it was acceptable to do so was not credible. The agent’s continued
operation without a license thwarted the public interest in regulation of the taxi industry. Indeed,
the agent’s failure to pay taxes on behalf of Mr. Roland, one of its medallion owners, is illustrative
of the need for such licensing.
For all these reasons, petitioner’s request for a penalty of $100 a day between February 4,
2021, and May 21, 2021, for a total of $10,600, is appropriate. I recommend that respondent be
fined this amount. The Commission may wish to consider a lower amount or an installment
payment if the agent demonstrates financial hardship.
I also recommend, as requested, that the Commission issue and post an order requiring the
agent to stop operating without a license, and that the Commission padlock the premises based
upon the unlicensed operation. As noted in the Administrative Code, the padlock order may be
lifted upon evidence that the agent has obtained a renewal license. Considering the hardship that
closure of the agent might impose upon the medallion owners and drivers managed by the agent,
the parties are urged to find a resolution in which the agent’s license is renewed upon proof that it
has filed any overdue tax returns and paid at least some of the overdue taxes and surcharges.
Faye Lewis
Administrative Law Judge
August 6, 2021-8- SUBMITTED TO: ALOYSEE HEREDIA JARMOSZUK Commissioner APPEARANCES: REGINE GUSTAVE, ESQ. RENEE STOREY, ESQ. Attorney for Petitioner JOSEPH SCIFO Representative for Respondent
You can also read
