Courts Back Taxi of Tomorrow Progam

The New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission chose the Nissan NV200 as the ‘Taxi of Tomorrow.’ Wiki/Choppers
New York City’s Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) was within its “extremely broad” legal mandate under the City Charter when it designated a Nissan model as the “Taxi of Tomorrow,” a unanimous Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

The court determined that the commission followed City Charter guidelines in developing the Taxi of Tomorrow program, beginning in 2007, and in gathering input from the public and the auto industry to designate the Nissan NV200 as the car for New York City cabbies for at least the next decade.

“The broad authority granted to the TLC allows for the designation of a single vehicle model that was specifically designed—through a lengthy public process—to be a taxi,” Judge Leslie Stein wrote for the court in Greater New York Taxi Association v. New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 120. “The choice of the best possible vehicle for use as a taxi plainly fits within the purposes of the TLC to develop and improve taxi service as part of the city’s overall public transportation.”

In addition to complying with the New York City Charter §§2300 and 2303, the court said the TLC did not violate the state delegation-of-powers principles embodied in the Court of Appeals’ seminal findings in Boreali v. Axelrod, 71 NY2d 1 (1987).

Boreali laid out four “coalescing circumstances” for public officials to follow so they do not cross the line between administrative rule-making and the legislative role of public policy setting, including the manner in which agencies considered their options before making policies and the legal authority they relied on when doing so.

Considering the Boreali factors, Stein wrote, the court concluded that the TLC had the power to designate the Taxi of Tomorrow and went about the process properly.

“In developing the ToT [Taxi of Tomorrow] rules, the TLC balanced the costs and benefits to all interested parties—passengers, owners, drivers and the general public—using many of the same guidelines that it previously used to develop rules with specs,” Stein wrote.

“In developing the ToT [Taxi of Tomorrow] rules, the TLC balanced the costs and benefits to all interested parties—passengers, owners, drivers and the general public—using many of the same guidelines that it previously used to develop rules with specs,” Stein wrote.

The court said it reviewed the Boreali factors in the taxi case the same way it analyzed the legality of the restrictions the New York City Board of Health placed upon the sale of sugary beverages in larger containers in Matter of New York Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 23 NY3d 681, 698 [2014].

In the sugary drink case, however, the court concluded that the Board of Health intruded on the policy-setting territory in a public health matter that is reserved for the City Council (NYLJ, June 27, 2014).

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and Judges Eugene Pigott Jr., Susan Phillips Read, Jenny Rivera, Sheila Abdus-Salaam and Eugene Fahey joined in Thursday’s ruling.

Both the city and Nissan hailed the decision.

Meera Joshi, the TLC’s chief executive officer, said the decision affirmed that the commission has the “responsibility and the ability to advance the public good and fight for our passengers,” including the goal of making half the city’s cab fleet wheelchair accessible.

“We believe this is a good outcome that will enable us to expand this use of a modern vehicle, designed with safety, health and comfort in mind,” Joshi said in a statement released by the New York City Corporation Counsel’s office.

Travis Parman, a spokesman for Nissan-USA in Franklin, Tennessee, said the NV200 has design and safety features geared toward their use as taxis, which he said have a manufacturers’ suggested retail price of just under $30,000 each.

“Given the specific New York City taxi research and development that Nissan has conducted, we are confident that the Nissan NV200 taxi provides a vehicle that is optimal in safety, comfort and convenience for passengers and drivers alike,” Parman said Thursday.

The ruling affirmed a finding by an Appellate Division, First Department, panel backing the TLC’s authority in the Taxi of Tomorrow program (NYLJ, June 11, 2014).

That appeals court had reversed the decision by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Shlomo Hagler, who said that while the TLC has had the power to set standards for taxis operating in New York City, the commission does not have authority to designate one model as the sole cab permitted on city streets under the city’s medallion system.

Stein’s ruling noted that the TLC, which was formed in 1971, has long focused on preferred models for New York City cabs, first with the iconic Checker cab in the 1970s and early 1980s and the Ford Crown Victoria and Escape SUV in the 1990s and 2000s. All three models are no longer produced.

In 2010, the TLC’s vetting of designated cab models came down to three finalist models. The commission settled on the NV200 in May 2011.

Nissan’s contract to supply the cabs is estimated to be worth about $1 billion over the next decade. There are currently about 13,500 medallioned cabs in New York City.

The Taxi of Tomorrow program was to take effect in April, but the Court of Appeals granted an order staying its enactment while it considered the appeal (NYLJ, April 1).

Fox Rothschild partner Mitchell Berns represented the Greater New York Taxi Association. Berns deferred to the association, which did not return calls for comment.

The Taxi and Limousine Commission was represented by Assistant Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Freedman.

Peter Brennan, a partner at Jenner & Block in Chicago, represented intervenor Nissan.

Disorderly Conduct

In another ruling Thursday, the court threw out a weapons charge against a maintenance worker on the grounds that his arrest was not justified by his abusive behavior toward police officers in a Manhattan subway station.

The 7-0 court said in an unsigned ruling in People v. Gonzalez, 76, that authorities simply did not have probable cause to arrest defendant Richard Gonzalez for disorderly conduct under state Penal Law §240.20[3]. Officers arrested Gonzalez after they said he shouted obscenities and gesticulated at them that they discovered he was carrying a gravity knife, according to the ruling.

The court wrote, quoting People v. Baker, 20 NY3d 354 (2013), that, “A person may be guilty of disorderly conduct only when the situation extends beyond the exchange between the individual disputants to a point where it becomes a potential or immediate public problem.”

That point was not reached in the Gonzalez case, the judges said.

The court reversed a First Department decision upholding Gonzalez’s conviction for third-degree criminal possession of a weapon and an accompanying prison sentence of 31/2 to 7 years.

Lippman, Pigott, Read, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein and Fahey joined in the ruling.

Robert Dean, attorney-in-charge at the Center for Appellate Litigation, argued for Gonzalez. Assistant Manhattan District Attorney Malancha Chanda represented the prosecution.

Read more: http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202730512830/Court-Backs-Taxi-of-Tomorrow-Program#ixzz3eC9Bvd1v