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
© 2024 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
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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
