Owner Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. Karas

• Decision Date: 05 November 2020
• Docket Number: 528358
• Parties: OWNER OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Paul A. KARAS, as Acting Commissioner of Transportation, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

188 A.D.3d 1313

133 N.Y.S.3d 681

OWNER OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Appellants,

v.Paul A. KARAS, as Acting Commissioner of Transportation, et al., Respondents.

528358

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: September 10, 2020

Decided and Entered: November 5, 2020

Tabner, Ryan & Keniry, LLP, Albany (Thomas R. Falatti of counsel) and The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC, Washington, DC (Gregory R. Reed of counsel, admitted pro hac vice), for appellants.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Patrick A. Woods of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Clark, J.

Appeals (1) from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court (Platkin, J.), entered December 31, 2018 in Albany County, which, among other things, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) from an order of said court, entered April 3, 2019 in Albany County, which denied plaintiffs' motion to renew.

In accordance with federal law, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (hereinafter FMCSA) establishes and enforces federal safety standards for commercial motor vehicles (hereinafter CMVs) and their operators. The FMCSA enforces its regulations in partnership with states participating in the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, through which states receive grant funding in exchange for adopting FMCSA regulations into state law and assisting in their enforcement (see 49 USC § 31102 ; 49 CFR 350.101, 350.209, 350.211 ). New York is a participant in the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program and incorporates the required federal regulations into the regulations promulgated by the Department of Transportation (see 17 NYCRR part 820). In New York, the Department of Transportation, assisted by the Department of Motor Vehicles and the State Police, is primarily responsible for enforcing the CMV rules for CMVs and overseeing a roadside safety program.

Among other safety requirements, the FMCSA and participating states regulate a CMV operator's maximum number of driving service hours (see 49 CFR part 395). To that end, state and federal laws require CMV operators to record their hours of service and rest time, as well as other relevant data, and to produce such records for inspection upon demand by state law enforcement (see 49 USC 31142 [d]; Transportation Law § 140[2][b] ; 17 NYCRR 820.12 [a] ). Driver logs with hours of service data and duty status were previously documented on paper records or by automatic on-board recording devices (see 49 CFR former 395.8[a] ). However, in 2012, Congress passed legislation requiring the installation of electronic logging devices (hereinafter ELDs) on CMVs involved in interstate commerce and operated by drivers subject to the hours of service and record of duty status requirements (see 49 USC § 31137 [a] ). Using GPS and engine integration, ELDs automatically record data, such as the date, time and the general location of the CMVs and the number of engine hours and vehicle miles. In 2015, the FMCSA promulgated the final ELD rule, which, subject to certain exceptions, required that ELDs be installed and in use by December 18, 2017 (see 49 CFR 395.8, 395.15, 395.22, 395.24 ).

In January 2018, prior to New York's incorporation of the federal ELD rule, plaintiff Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation whose members own and operate CMVs, together with four individuals who own and operate CMVs in this state, commenced this class action against defendants – state officials at the Department of Transportation, the Department of Motor Vehicles and the State Police. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants were enforcing the ELD rule prior to its incorporation into state law, asserted that such enforcement violated plaintiffs' rights to due process and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the N.Y. Constitution, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting defendants' preadoption enforcement of the ELD rule. Defendants moved, pre-answer, to dismiss the complaint, arguing, as relevant here, that plaintiffs' claims were unripe for review because the ELD rule had not been, and would not be, enforced prior to its adoption into state law. Supreme Court notified the parties of its intention to treat the motion as one for summary judgment, and the parties entered into stipulations allowing for paper discovery and the submission of supplemental briefs. Following the completion of paper discovery, defendants filed a supplemental submission on their motion, and plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment on their second and third causes of action.

In an order and judgment entered in December 2018, Supreme Court declared that defendants were not enforcing the ELD rule in violation of the N.Y. Constitution and, consequently, granted defendants summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs' cross motion ( 62 Misc.3d 909, 93 N.Y.S.3d 802 [Sup. Ct., Albany County 2018] ). In so doing, Supreme Court found that defendants' proof had established as a matter of law that they were not enforcing the ELD rule prior to its incorporation into state law and that the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated by the roadside inspection of ELDs for the sole purpose of ensuring compliance with preexisting hours of service requirements.

Thereafter, New York adopted the ELD rule as an emergency measure,¹ with an effective date of January 16, 2019. Based upon the newly adopted emergency ELD rule, plaintiffs moved pursuant to CPLR 2221 for leave to renew their opposition...