Why Did NYC Cancel $37.4M in Parking Fines?
What is puzzling about DOF's volunteering to cancel the fines is not just that the fines total tens of millions of dollars but that DOF routinely treats misdescription of information required by VTL 238(2) as an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional defect.
December 08, 2017 at 02:09 PM
3 minute read
Why has the Department of Finance cancelled what reportedly amounts to $37.4 million in fines for parking tickets—$11.4 million for parking tickets dismissed at Parking Violations Bureau hearings and $26 million for tickets dismissed by DOF administratively (see Danielle Furfaro, “City didn't notice error that got millions in parking tickets dismissed,” New York Post, Nov. 20, 2017, at https://nypost.com/2017/11/19/city-didnt-notice-error-that-got-millions-in-parking-tickets-dismissed/ (accessed Dec. 6, 2017).
In cancelling those fines, DOF must rely on section 238 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which requires that parking tickets contain, among other information, “a description of the charged violation, including … a reference to the applicable traffic rule” (VTL 238[2]) and that “[i]f any information which is required to be inserted on a [parking ticket] is omitted from the [ticket], misdescribed or illegible, the violation shall be dismissed upon application of the person charged with the violation” (VTL 238[2-a][b]).
The tickets in question, which issued to vehicles for either failing to display a parking meter receipt or displaying an expired parking meter receipt while parked in a parking meter zone, describe the charged violation correctly in words and cite the correct section and subdivision of the applicable traffic rule. However, those tickets misdescribe the paragraph of that subdivision–citing NYC Traffic Rule §4-08(h)(10) instead of §4-08(h)(1), which had replaced §4-08(h)(10) effective April 20, 2017 (see NYC Rules, “DOT Amendment to Traffic Rules,” at http://rules.cityofnewyork.us/content/dot-amendment-traffic-rules-0 [accessed Nov. 20, 2017]).
DOF did not issue those tickets (see generally, on authorized issuing agents: VTL 237[9]; NYC Charter 2903[a][14]; 19 RCNY 39-01), but is charged with operating and controlling the Parking Violations Bureau (NYC Charter 1504[4]). The Bureau is an administrative tribunal empowered to adjudicate charges of parking violation (see VTL 155; VTL Article 2-B; NYC Administrative Code, Title 19, Ch. 2; 19 RCNY Ch. 39).
Instead of voluntarily cancelling fines totaling $37.4 million, should DOF have taken the position that, absent a court deciding otherwise, the tickets comply with VTL 238(2) by containing a description of the charged violation, including a reference to the applicable traffic rule? As noted, the tickets describe the charged violation correctly in words and cite the correct section and subdivision of the applicable traffic rule, but misdescribe the paragraph of that subdivision.
What is puzzling about DOF's volunteering to cancel the fines is not just that the fines total tens of millions of dollars but that DOF routinely treats misdescription of information required by VTL 238(2) as an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional defect (see Dennis Boshnack, ”First Department Supports Dismissing Parking Tickets” [NYLJ, Outside Counsel, Sept. 11, 2014]).
Yet, in dismissing tickets for misdescription here, DOF elected to dismiss tickets administratively on a technicality even where the parking ticket recipient did not claim prejudice from any error, did not make an application for dismissal of the charged violation, or paid the parking ticket without contesting it (cf. NYC Dept. of Finance, Fines, “Alert: Incorrectly Issued Parking Tickets,” http://www1.nyc.gov/site/finance/vehicles/vehicles.page [accessed Dec. 6, 2017]).
Dennis Boshnack
The writer is an attorney in Bayside, N.Y.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Repealing Fault Grounds for Divorce Would Have Little Effect on NY Matrimonial Law
11 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Thursday Newspaper
- 2Public Notices/Calendars
- 3Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-117
- 4Rejuvenation of a Sharp Employer Non-Compete Tool: Delaware Supreme Court Reinvigorates the Employee Choice Doctrine
- 5Mastering Litigation in New York’s Commercial Division Part V, Leave It to the Experts: Expert Discovery in the New York Commercial Division
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
