Clair v. City of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 13 October 2016 |
| Citation | 40 N.Y.S.3d 33,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06768,144 A.D.3d 98 |
| Parties | In re Susan CLAIR, et al., Petitioners–Appellants, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents–Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Cuti Hecker Wang LLP, New York (Eric Hecker and Daniel Mullkoff of counsel), for appellants.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (MacKenzie Fillow and Scott Shorr of counsel), for respondents.
ANGELA M. MAZZARELLI, J.P., ROLANDO T. ACOSTA, DAVID B. SAXE, BARBARA R. KAPNICK, MARCY L. KAHN, JJ.
, J.
In this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, petitioners include one natural person owning an “independent” New York City yellow taxicab medallion, which is restricted to use with only one taxicab, and four corporate owners of both independent and “minifleet” medallions, the latter of which authorize the operation of an unlimited number of yellow taxicabs. Petitioners seek annulment of the “Accessibility Rules” (35 RCNY 51–03 [as amended], et seq. ) promulgated by respondent New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), as violative of section 19–533 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, and as arbitrarily, capriciously and in error of law mandating their conversion to accessible vehicles in the absence of a TLC–approved hybrid electric vehicle which is also accessible to mobility challenged passengers. Petitioners also seek to enjoin respondents City of New York, the TLC and its Commissioner from enforcing the Accessibility Rules and a declaration that those rules violate § 19–533
.1 Respondents cross-move to dismiss the proceeding, claiming, to the extent relevant on this appeal, that petitioners' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches.
Careful examination of both the statutory scheme and the Accessibility Rules demonstrates that petitioners' claims are without basis and that affirmance is appropriate, albeit on somewhat different grounds.
In 2005, with the manifest aim of addressing issues of air quality and fuel conservation, and at a time when the TLC had not yet approved any vehicle that could be used with medallions restricted to use with alternative fuel vehicles, which it had already begun to issue pursuant to City Council authorization (see Administrative Code § 19–532), the Council enacted Administrative Code § 19–533, entitled “Clean air taxis,” which provides as follows:
On April 30, 2014, the TLC promulgated the Accessibility Rules, which prescribed a process under which half of the City's taxi fleet would become wheelchair-accessible within several years. Specifically at issue here are two sections of the Accessibility Rules, the first of which addresses the start date of the TLC's accessibility program (35 RCNY 51–03) and the second of which sets forth requirements for replacement of certain vehicles being mandatorily retired with accessible vehicles (35 RCNY 58–50). The first provision, section 51–03, defines “Accessible Conversion Start Date,” i.e., the date of commencement of the TLC's accessible conversion program, as “the earlier of (1) the date on which there is available an Accessible Taxicab Model that meets ... the requirements of § 19–533 of the Administrative Code ... or (2) January 1, 2016” (35 RCNY 51–03). The second provision, section 58–50, sets forth the requirements for replacement of vehicles using minifleet and independent medallions being mandatorily retired with accessible vehicles, although the requirements are implemented differently as to those two types of medallions. Under that section, as of the Accessible Conversion Start Date, minifleet medallion owners must replace their vehicles being mandatorily retired with accessible vehicles until at least 50% of their fleets have been replaced with such vehicles (35 RCNY 58–50[a][i] ). Independent medallions used by vehicles to be mandatorily retired within a particular period are entered into a lottery in which 50% of those medallions are selected for mandatory replacement of the vehicles using them with accessible vehicles (35 RCNY 58–50[c][i], [iii] ).
In a further provision, the Accessibility Rules provide for a “Taxicab Improvement Fund” (see 35 RCNY 58–16[g] ) and a “Street Hail Livery Improvement Fund” (see 35 RCNY 82–17[g] ), which provide grants to medallion owners and licensees required to purchase accessible vehicles. The funds are financed by a $0.30 per ride surcharge, and the total amount of surcharges collected exceeds $40 million. An initial grant of $14,000 per vehicle is awarded to medallion owners and licensees required to convert to accessible vehicles, and an additional grant of $4,000 per year is awarded for each of the four years such a vehicle is required to remain in service.
Significantly, by 2014, the TLC had approved for use numerous alternative fuel vehicles, all but one of which was a hybrid electric vehicle satisfying § 19–533
. By January 1, 2016, however, it had not approved any § 19–533 compliant hybrid electric vehicle which was also accessible, because no such vehicle existed.
Petitioners argue that in the absence of an available, accessible vehicle that meets the requirements of Administrative Code § 19–533, the Accessibility Rules are in irreconcilable conflict with the statute, and that the TLC is without authority to mandate that medallion owners replace vehicles being retired with non-hybrid electric wheelchair-accessible vehicles. Although petitioners present a skillful argument that the language of § 19–533
, viewed in isolation, suggests such a construction, their argument is incompatible with the language of the statute, its legislative purpose, and with any sensible assessment of the intent of the City Council in enacting the statutory scheme.
The precise directive of § 19–533
is that the TLC “shall approve one or more hybrid electric vehicle models” and that “[t]he approved vehicle model or models shall be eligible for immediate use by all current and future medallion owners” (emphasis added). The TLC fulfilled this mandate in 2014 by approving certain hybrid electric vehicles for use as taxicabs and making them eligible for immediate use by medallion owners.
does not direct that in every case in which a vehicle is to be purchased or leased by a medallion owner, the TLC must make purchase or lease of a hybrid electric vehicle a requirement, however (see
Greater New York Taxi Assn. v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 121 A.D.3d 21, 35, 988 N.Y.S.2d 5 [1st Dept.2014] [], affd. 25 N.Y.3d 600, 15 N.Y.S.3d 725, 36 N.E.3d 632 [2015] ). Neither does the statute mandate that the TLC take hybrid electric vehicles into account whenever it promulgates a new set of rules. Rather, the legislative intent of § 19–533 was merely “to encourage the use and development of alternative fuel vehicles, including hybrid electric vehicles” (Council of City of NY LL 72/2005, § 1, proposing enactment of Administrative Code § 19–533, effective July 20, 2005). Had the City Council intended for the TLC to require hybrid electric vehicles, it could have explicitly done so.
In any event, in 2006, the year after § 19–533
was enacted, the City Council enacted Administrative Code § 19–534. That statute mandated that the TLC develop, approve and implement a plan to increase the number of both clean air and accessible vehicles. Thus, prior to the adoption of the Accessibility Rules, including both sections 51–03 and 58–50, the City Council demonstrated its intent to increase the number of both alternative fuel and accessible taxicab vehicles, rather than to mandate solely the increased deployment of hybrid electric vehicles to the exclusion of other models of alternative fuel and accessible vehicles.
In keeping with this legislative intent, the TLC promulgated sections 51–03, 58–50 and the other aspects of the Accessibility Rules. In those rules, the TLC established a precondition for commencement of the program that encouraged the development of a vehicle that is both compliant with § 19–533
and accessible, consistent with its twin statutory mandates of promoting cleaner air and serving disabled passengers. Recognizing that such a vehicle might not be developed, however, the TLC included language in this rule limiting the time period in which this precondition remained in effect to no later than January 1, 2016, 20 months after the Accessibility Rules were promulgated. In doing so, the TLC rationally promulgated rules providing for a reasonable period of time for the development of an accessible hybrid electric vehicle while ensuring that, at minimum, the TLC's mandate to increase the number of accessible taxicabs would be fulfilled.
Overall, the Accessibility Rules merely provide for the implementation of a taxicab conversion program designed to increase the number of accessible taxicab vehicles to 50% of New York City's taxi fleet by 2020. In furtherance of that purpose, the Accessibility Rules provide for the establishment of two funds, one for taxicabs and one for street hail livery vehicles, to subsidize required conversions of taxicabs and livery vehicles to accessible vehicles and to cover expenses for the required training...
To continue reading
Request your trial