City finds Queens unwelcoming

City finds Queens unwelcoming

The City is trying to move the latest lawsuit attacking its failure to regulate Uber out of Queens.

In the lawsuit, four lenders who finance the purchase of taxi medallions argue that the city and its TLC  are letting ride-share companies such as Uber pick up passengers who hail cars using smartphone apps, which is tantamount to accepting street hails. By letting Uber and others operate freely, the city is depriving medallions holders of their exclusive right to respond to street hails, the lawsuit alleges.

The City says that the case should be in Manhattan, where a similar case has been filed, because the Mayor’s principal place of business is there. Lawyers for the plaintiffs called the City’s motion “judge shopping.” They note also that the TLC’s largest office is in Queens and that a plurality of taxi drivers live in Queens.


Taxi of Tomorrow– not Yet

Annie sang: “Tomorrow, Tomorrow, you’re always a day away!”

And so it is with the Taxi of Tomorrow.

The planed rollout has been delayed again by a ruling by the New York Court of Appeals. The court, the state’s highest, granted a stay in a continuing appeal over the vehicle.

The puts efforts to phase in the Nissan NV200 as the only acceptable New York yellow taxi on hold  while the court decides an appeal brought by a a prominent taxi owners group. The NYC TLC  had April 20 as the date after which most taxi owners would have to switch to the new vehicle when they retire their cabs.

The Greater New York Taxi Association has opposed the NV200, arguing that the Bloomberg administration exceeded its authority by trying to force drivers to buy a certain vehicle. Traditionally, the TLC had established standards for taxicabs, but allowed any car that met those standards to be used as a yellow cab. The TLC’s long-delayed plan does not apply to livery cabs or black cars, which now outnumber yellow cabs. 


Taxi of Tomorrow Held Legal

The so-called Taxi of Tomorrow got a legal green light from an intermediate state appeals court today, reversing an earlier trial court decision.  
Read the appeals court decision here.  
According to BloombergBusinessweek report, the Appellate Division ruled that the Taxi of Tomorrow program is a “legally appropriate response to the agency’s statutory obligation to produce a 21st-century taxicab consistent with the broad interests and perspectives that the agency is charged with protecting.” Judge David B. Saxe wrote the majority opinion. That there was a dissent by Judge Acosta makes an appeal to the New York Court of Appeals more likely.
Nissan won a contract with the city in May 2011 that allowed it to be the sole maker of NYC taxis, a deal valued at $1 billion over 10 years. 
Taxi fleet operators sued the city in December 2012 on the ground that the TLC had the authority to issue standards, but not to designate a particular vehicle. A judge halted the program five months later.  The city subsequently revised its rules to allow for more hybrid vehicles, something the TLC had previously advocated. The Nissan vehicle is not a hybrid, yet the TLC made it mandatory.
But in today’s ruling, the court wrote: “Where an agency has been endowed with broad power to regulate in the public interest, we have not hesitated to uphold reasonable acts on its part designed to further the regulatory scheme. Here … far-reaching control has been delegated to a commission charged with implementing a pervasive regulatory program. This far-reaching control granted to the TLC by the New York City Charter gave the agency full authority for its actions. 
Judge Acosta said in dissent that the commission exceeded its authority, “regardless of whether the Taxi of Tomorrow project is rational and consistent” with its objectives, because it mandated the exclusive use of a specific make, model and manufacturer.

The T o T was a darling of the Bloomberg administration. The new mayor, Bill De Blasio, has decidedly different views about the taxi industry so it remains to be seen whether the city and the TLC will seek to revive the program.

  

Bloomberg’s Outer Borough Taxis Back In Business

On June 6, the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in NY state, unanimously upheld the Mayor Bloomberg’s plan to radically expand so-called street-hail taxi service beyond Manhattan, signaling a fundamental shift in New York City’s entrenched taxi culture.
The decision permits a plan, which had been held in violation of New York’s “Home Rule” law, that will allow thousands of the newly designated taxis — painted green, rather than yellow — to accept street hails in the city’s outer boroughs and in northern Manhattan.
The plan has been advertised as addressing an inequity by which  that has existed for decades by which folks outside Manhattan were left without taxis.  In fact, most of New York had cabs widely available.  But these were livery cabs that had to be called or “pre-arranged.”  Only yellow taxis were permitted to accept street hails.  For the classic take by Howard Husock on the City’s Three-Tier Taxi System, click here.
While the legal wrangling focused on whether the new law could be enacted by the state legislature rather than the NYC City Council, the real issue involves a turf fight between taxi companies.  Yellow cab owners figured that when they paid for a medallion, which can trade for as much as $1 million, they bought exclusive rights to accept street hails.  
The Court of Appeals took the unusual step of accepting the appeal straight from the trial court without requiring an intermediate appeal. Its decision upsets the apple cart in a major way.  It also ends a serious litigation losing streak for the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission.
The Court of Appeals Decision
For The New York Times story on the decision: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/nyregion/plan-for-expanded-taxi-hailing-service-reinstated.html?_r=0
The NY Daily News http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/18-000-cabs-street-hails-article-1.1364855
The Village Voice http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2013/06/the_green_cab_i.php
The City Press Release

Search

000-017   000-080   000-089   000-104   000-105   000-106   070-461   100-101   100-105  , 100-105  , 101   101-400   102-400   1V0-601   1Y0-201   1Z0-051   1Z0-060   1Z0-061   1Z0-144   1z0-434   1Z0-803   1Z0-804   1z0-808   200-101   200-120   200-125  , 200-125  , 200-310   200-355   210-060   210-065   210-260   220-801   220-802   220-901   220-902   2V0-620   2V0-621   2V0-621D   300-070   300-075   300-101   300-115   300-135   3002   300-206   300-208   300-209   300-320   350-001   350-018   350-029   350-030   350-050   350-060   350-080   352-001   400-051   400-101   400-201   500-260   640-692   640-911   640-916   642-732   642-999   700-501   70-177   70-178   70-243   70-246   70-270   70-346   70-347   70-410   70-411   70-412   70-413   70-417   70-461   70-462   70-463   70-480   70-483   70-486   70-487   70-488   70-532   70-533   70-534   70-980   74-678   810-403   9A0-385   9L0-012   9L0-066   ADM-201   AWS-SYSOPS   C_TFIN52_66   c2010-652   c2010-657   CAP   CAS-002   CCA-500   CISM   CISSP   CRISC   EX200   EX300   HP0-S42   ICBB   ICGB   ITILFND   JK0-022   JN0-102   JN0-360   LX0-103   LX0-104   M70-101   MB2-704   MB2-707   MB5-705   MB6-703   N10-006   NS0-157   NSE4   OG0-091   OG0-093   PEGACPBA71V1   PMP   PR000041   SSCP   SY0-401   VCP550   300-135   350-060   300-206   200-125  , 300-075   AWS-SYSOPS   200-101   070-461   9L0-066   JN0-102   210-060   000-106   200-125  , 500-260   300-206   70-412   74-678   70-178   PEGACPBA71V1   210-260   CRISC   EX200   70-413   220-902   ITILFND   100-101   LX0-103   400-051   70-410   70-417   JK0-022   70-413   352-001   AWS-SYSOPS   ADM-201   300-115   640-692   000-080   ICGB   70-463   ICBB   70-410   70-487