IN RE GLEN BOLOFSKY, ETC., ET AL., pet-ap, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK res-res

2889. IN RE GLEN BOLOFSKY, ETC., ET AL., pet-ap, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK res-res — Edelstein & Grossman, New York (Jonathan I. Edelstein of counsel), for ap — Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ingrid R. Gustafson of counsel), for res — Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered March 18, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, dismissed, in part, petitioners' fourth cause of action, and dismissed, in their entirety, the fifth and sixth causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

2889. IN RE GLEN BOLOFSKY, ETC., ET AL., pet-ap, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK res-res — Edelstein & Grossman, New York (Jonathan I. Edelstein of counsel), for ap — Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ingrid R. Gustafson of counsel), for res — Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered March 18, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, dismissed, in part, petitioners’ fourth cause of action, and dismissed, in their entirety, the fifth and sixth causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

With respect to the fourth cause of action regarding Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) §240(1)’s hearing notice requirements, the court properly limited petitioners’ requested relief to that which is required under the statute, by directing respondent Parking Violations Bureau (PVB) to send written notice by first class mail of the date of each hearing on each parking violation, listing the tickets in the order in which they will be heard, and including warnings that failure to appear shall be deemed an admission of liability that could result in entry of a default judgment. Nothing in VTL §240(1) requires respondents to employ a calendaring system that enables petitioner to choose the order in which the tickets are adjudicated. Petitioners fail to establish that any burdens on them that result from respondents’ policies with respect to the order in which parking tickets are heard rise to the level of a due process violation.

IN RE GLEN BOLOFSKY, ETC., ET AL., pet-ap, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK res-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal