Judge Backs Order Blocking Congestion Tax on Rides in Manhattan
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lynn Kotler said a temporary restraining order to levy congestion taxes on taxis and other ride services that make trips into Manhattan below 96th Street would remain in place until at least Jan. 31.
January 17, 2019 at 04:46 PM
4 minute read
A state court judge on Thursday left in place an order blocking implementation of new taxes for taxi cabs, for-hire vehicles and ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft that make trips into a designated congestion area in Manhattan.
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lynn Kotler said a temporary restraining order to levy congestion taxes on taxis and other ride services that make trips into Manhattan below 96th Street, which was supposed to take effect at the beginning of the year, would remain in place until at least Jan. 31.
Kotler's determination came after hearing oral arguments from the state Attorney General's Office in defense of the tax and attorneys for drivers, with each side presenting Kotler with dire consequences in the event that the new tax is levied or if it continues to be blocked.
The new tax, passed last year by the State Assembly, imposes a $2.75 charge on ride-hailing services and for-hire services such as black cars and limos for trips in and out of the congestion zone and a $2.50 charge on taxi cabs.
All vehicles would be charged $1 for trips above 96th Street; additionally, there is already a 50 cent surcharge on cab rides that is passed along to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
The law requires that the charges be passed along to passengers.
Assistant Attorney General Noam Lerer argued that the Legislature intended for the tax to ease rising automobile congestion in Manhattan while providing badly needed revenue for the MTA.
Lerer said that the MTA drew up its budget with the congestion tax revenue in mind and that it is losing $1 million each day that Kotler's injunction remains in place. If it keeps up, he argued, the MTA may have to make cuts in other areas to make up for the missing revenue.
“Something is going to have to give,” Lerer said.
But Brett Berman, a partner at Fox Rothschild who is representing a group of cabbies and taxicab medallion owners, argued that the new tax is being levied on cabbies at a time when app-based ride-hailing services have taken a big bite out of their business and the value of taxicab medallions have plummeted.
Berman also noted that app-based ride-hailing services will only be hit with a 75-cent charge for rides when their drivers are offering shared-ride services such as Uber Pool, regardless of whether the drivers are actually carrying more than one passenger.
“It is unprecedented what has happened in this industry,” Berman said. The attorney also noted that in 2018, eight drivers licensed by the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission committed suicide, which advocates have chalked up to financial hardship.
The plaintiffs also argue that the TLC would need to promulgate new rules to pass the costs of the new taxes along to passengers, but the TLC, a defendant in the case, says that new regulations aren't needed.
While the TLC finds itself at odds with cab drivers and medallion in the courtroom, Meera Joshi, chairman and CEO of the commission, said that, after the congestion tax is implemented, it would cost $5.80 just to step into a cab and that is going to be “devastating” for the industry.
Uber and Lyft, which have expressed support for congestion pricing schemes in New York City but were recently subjected to a one-year freeze on the number of cars that the companies can have on the city's streets, are not parties to the suit.
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 AllWalmart Accused of Misrepresenting 'Cheese' Ingredients in Great Value's Macaroni & Cheese
3 minute readDecision of the Day: Attorney in Social Security Case Awarded Fees, But Must Pay Client Refund Under Equal Access to Justice Act
Decision of the Day: Former IDF Soldier Cannot Remain Anonymous in Workplace Discrimination Suit, Court Finds
Dapper Labs $4M Settlement, $1.3M in Attorney Fees Reveal NFT Settlement Trend
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Importance of Plaintiffs Not Letting Defendants Dictate Settlement Tax Strategies
- 2A New State Law Is a Positive Step Forward for Judicial Security in Pennsylvania—But More Action Is Needed
- 3Does the FAAAA Preempt State Negligence Claims Against Freight Brokers?
- 4People in the News—Nov. 14, 2024—Cummins, McNees
- 5County Reps: Appeal Likely Following State Court's Sales Tax Ruling for Retail Marijuana
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