Sysco Metro NY, LLC v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 20 September 2017
• Docket Number: 101637,2015
• Citation: 59 Misc.3d 727,69 N.Y.S.3d 778
• Parties: In the Matter of the Application of SYSCO METRO NY, LLC, and Parking Survival Experts d/b/a parkingticket.com, on their behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioners, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, New York City Department of Finance Commercial Adjudications Unit a/k/a Adjudication Division, and Jacques Jiha, Individually and as New York City Commissioner of Finance, Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

59 Misc.3d 727

69 N.Y.S.3d 778

In the Matter of the Application of SYSCO METRO NY, LLC, and Parking Survival Experts d/b/a parkingticket.com, on their behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioners,

v.CITY OF NEW YORK, New York City Department of Finance Commercial Adjudications Unit a/k/a Adjudication Division, and Jacques Jiha, Individually and as New York City Commissioner of Finance, Respondents.

101637

2015

Supreme Court, New York County, New York.

Decided on September 20, 2017

Jonathan Edelstein Esq., Edelstein & Grossman, 501 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Brian D. Glass Esq., Glass Krakower LLP, 100 Church Street, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10007, For Petitioners

Kerri Devine, Senior Counsel, Amy Weinblatt, Senior Counsel, New York City Law Department, 100 Church Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10007, For Respondents

Lucy Billings, J.Petitioners Sysco Metro NY, LLC, which owns and operates a fleet of vehicles in New York City, and Parking Survival Experts (PSE), which appears on Sysco Metro's behalf at hearings on traffic summonses issued to Sysco Metro, bring this hybrid proceeding pursuant to C.P.L.R. Article 78 and class action to vacate parking summonses issued by respondent City of New York. Petitioners seek to vacate over 1,000 parking summonses issued to Sysco Metro alone.

I. UNDISPUTED BACKGROUND FACTS

Respondent City issued 1,019 summonses to Sysco Metro's tractors, alleging violations of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) and regulations under the VTL, that petitioners contend misdescribed the offending tractors' body type. Each of these "body type" summonses listed the body type not as a "tractor," but as a "truck," a "DELV," or another notation. PSE contested the summonses before respondent New York City Department of Finance Commercial Adjudications Unit (CAU) on Sysco Metro's behalf, claiming the summonses misdescribed the tractors' body type in violation of VTL § 238(2). PSE produced evidence showing each vehicle was a tractor and not a "truck" or another delivery vehicle. CAU administrative law judges rejected petitioners' claim, found Sysco Metro guilty, and imposed fines for each summons. Petitioners appealed to the CAU Appeal Board, which affirmed each finding.

Respondent City also issued to Sysco Metro 367 "lift gate" summonses alleging that its tractors violated 34 R.C.NY 4–08(k)(7), which prohibits a commercial vehicle from parking on a street with the vehicle's lift gate down while the vehicle is unattended. Each summons, however, lists the license plate and state of the tractor, which has no lift gate, but which pulls a trailer housing the lift gate. Many of these summonses also do not list the offending tractor's body type as "tractor." PSE contested these lift gate summonses as well, claiming that they misdescribed the offending vehicle's license plate and state in violation of VTL § 238(2). Petitioners contend that the statute requires the summonses to list the license plate and state of the trailer that houses the offending lift gates, not the tractor pulling the trailer. PSE produced evidence showing each license plate listed was affixed to a tractor and that each tractor did not have a lift gate. CAU administrative law judges rejected petitioners' claim and found Sysco Metro guilty, followed by the CAU Appeal Board's affirmance of the finding for each summons.

This proceeding and class action now seek to vacate the CAU's determinations finding petitioner Sysco Metro guilty of violations on 1,019 "body type" summonses and 387 "lift gate" summonses and to recover all fines Sysco Metro paid for these violations. Petitioners seek a declaratory judgment that respondents' failure to use the body type notation "tractor" on summonses issued to tractors and issuance of summonses for lift gate violations to tractors instead of trailers violate VTL § 238(2). C.P.L.R. § 3001. Petitioners further seek to enjoin respondents (1) from adjudicating guilt of violations on any future summonses issued to tractors that do not describe the "body type" as "tractor" or are for "lift gate" violations, (2) to dismiss all such summonses currently before the CAU, and (3) to vacate all previous adjudications of guilt of violations on such summonses. The parties have stipulated to discontinue the proceeding against respondent Jiha in his individual capacity. C.P.L.R. § 3217(a)(2).

II. PSE'S STANDING

Respondents claim that PSE's appearance on Sysco Metro's behalf at CAU administrative hearings does not give PSE standing to challenge respondents' actions. To challenge respondents' actions, PSE must show that it has suffered an injury in fact and that the injury falls within the zone of interests protected by the laws under which petitioners claim relief. Transactive Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Social Services , 92 N.Y.2d 579, 587, 684 N.Y.S.2d 156, 706 N.E.2d 1180 (1998) ; Society of Plastics Indus., Inc. v. County of Suffolk , 77 N.Y.2d 761, 772–74, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1034 (1991) ; Roberts v. Health & Hosps. Corp. , 87 A.D.3d 311, 318–19, 928 N.Y.S.2d 236 (1st Dep't 2011) ; Citizens Emergency Comm. to Preserve Preserv. v. Tierney , 70 A.D.3d 576, 576, 896 N.Y.S.2d 41 (1st Dep't 2010). To show an injury in fact, PSE must delineate how respondents' actions actually harmed it and how the injury suffered is personal and distinct from injury to the general public. Roberts v. Health & Hosps. Corp. , 87 A.D.3d at 318, 928 N.Y.S.2d 236.

Because PSE has not shown that it suffered any injury from respondents' administrative actions, PSE lacks standing to challenge them. PSE's appearance on Sysco Metro's behalf at the administrative hearings and PSE's representation of other parties in similar administrative hearings shows an interest in respondents' adjudication of the summonses issued to Sysco Metro, but not an actual injury, and therefore does not confer standing. Citizens Emergency Comm. to Preserve Preserv. v. Tierney , 70 A.D.3d at 576, 896 N.Y.S.2d 41. See Transactive Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Soc. Servs. , 92 N.Y.2d at 587, 684 N.Y.S.2d 156, 706 N.E.2d 1180 ; Society of Plastics Indus., Inc. v. County of Suffolk , 77 N.Y.2d at 778, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1034 ; Roberts v. Health & Hosps. Corp. , 87 A.D.3d at 319, 928 N.Y.S.2d 236.

Nor does PSE show any injury within the zone of interests protected by the statutes and regulations under which respondents acted, as respondents' issuance of summonses for parking infractions affects only PSE's representation of its clients, without any direct effect on PSE itself. Roberts v. Health & Hosps. Corp. , 87 A.D.3d at 319, 928 N.Y.S.2d 236. Therefore the court dismisses PSE's claims against respondents.

III. SYSCO METRO'S CLAIMS

A. Applicable Standards

VTL §§ 235 –37 and New York City Administrative Code §§ 19–201 and 19–203 create a "parking violations bureau," now known as the CAU, to accept pleas to parking violations and to hear and determine guilt of charges of parking violations. The CAU is part of the Department of Finance and includes administrative law judges appointed by Commissioner Jiha who hold these hearings. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 19–202.

The court may overturn the CAU's determinations only if they were arbitrary, lacked a rational basis in the administrative record, or lacked a basis in law. C.P.L.R. § 7803(3) ; Rossi v. New York City Dept. of Parks & Recreation , 127 A.D.3d 463, 473, 8 N.Y.S.3d 25 (1st Dep't 2015) ; Nestle Waters N. Am., Inc. v. City of New York , 121 A.D.3d 124, 127, 990 N.Y.S.2d 512 (1st Dep't 2014) ; 20 Fifth Ave., LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 109 A.D.3d 159, 163, 970 N.Y.S.2d 25 (1st Dep't 2013) ; Langham Mansions, LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 76 A.D.3d 855, 857, 908 N.Y.S.2d 10 (1st Dep't 2010). See London Terrace Gardens L.P. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 149 A.D.3d 521, 521, 52 N.Y.S.3d 319 (1st Dep't 2017). The CAU's interpretation of the regulations and statutes governing parking, stopping, and standing of motor vehicles that the CAU is charged with enforcing, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 19–201, is entitled to deference as long as that interpretation is rational and consistent with governing law. Barenboim v. Starbucks Corp. , 21 N.Y.3d 460, 470–71, 972 N.Y.S.2d 191, 995 N.E.2d 153 (2013) ; Chesterfield Assoc. v. New York State Dept. of Labor , 4 N.Y.3d 597, 604, 797 N.Y.S.2d 389, 830 N.E.2d 287 (2005) ; Nestle Waters N. Am., Inc. v. City of New York , 121 A.D.3d at 127, 990 N.Y.S.2d 512. See Murphy v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 21 N.Y.3d 649, 654–55, 977 N.Y.S.2d 161, 999 N.E.2d 524 (2013) ; Lighthouse Pointe Prop. Assoc., LLC v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation , 14 N.Y.3d 161, 176–77, 897 N.Y.S.2d 693, 924 N.E.2d 801 (2010) ; Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P. , 13 N.Y.3d 270, 285–86, 890 N.Y.S.2d 388, 918 N.E.2d 900 (2009). Although the court need not defer to the CAU's expertise or interpretation when discerning the plain meaning of a statute or regulation, Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P. , 13 N.Y.3d at 285–86, 890 N.Y.S.2d 388, 918 N.E.2d 900 ; ATM One v. Landaverde , 2 N.Y.3d 472, 476–77, 779 N.Y.S.2d 808, 812 N.E.2d 298 (2004) ; Associated Mut. Ins. Coop. v. 198, LLC , 78 A.D.3d 597, 598, 914 N.Y.S.2d 7 (1st Dep't 2010) ; Smith v. Donovan , 61 A.D.3d 505, 508–509, 878 N.Y.S.2d 675 (1st Dep't 2009), when the terms of the statute or regulation are ambiguous and susceptible to conflicting interpretations, the court will accord deference to the CAU's interpretation and uphold it as long as it is reasonable. Golf v. New York State Dept. of Soc. Servs. , 91 N.Y.2d 656, 667, 674 N.Y.S.2d 600, 697 N.E.2d 555 (1998) ; Chin v. New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals , 97 A.D.3d 485, 487, 948 N.Y.S.2d 300 (1st Dep't 2012) ; Espada 2001 v. New York City Campaign Fin. Bd. , 59 A.D.3d 57, 64, 870 N.Y.S.2d 293 (1st Dep't 2008).

VTL § 238(2) requires that:

A notice of

...