Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
KING VICTOR TAXI CORP., et al., Petitioners, Melissa Cab Corp., et al., Petitioners-Appellants, For a Judgment, etc., v. The NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, Respondent-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered March 20, 1995, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of respondent dated June 23, 1994, imposing a fine of $10,000 to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale of petitioner Melissa Cab Corp. and ordering petitioner Mordechai Altman to divest himself of all remaining taxicab medallions owned through his solely-owned petitioner corporations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent's determination that petitioner Altman was guilty of knowingly submitting fraudulent condition corrected receipts was not arbitrary and capricious, and was rationally based on the evidence in the record (see, Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321; Matter of Purdy v. Kreisberg, 47 N.Y.2d 354, 358, 418 N.Y.S.2d 329, 391 N.E.2d 1307). Since Altman was the sole shareholder of Melissa Cab Corp., originally charged with production of counterfeit condition corrected receipts, and additional charges were subsequently filed explicitly naming Altman as the preparer thereof, Altman was given sufficient notice of and opportunity to be heard with respect to the charged fraud as to permit respondent, upon the finding of guilt as to Melissa, to require Altman to dispose of all remaining medallions (see also, 35 RCNY 1-85[h] ).
The Administrative Law Judge did not err in refusing to consider Altman's polygraph evidence because of the unreliability thereof (see, People v. Shedrick, 66 N.Y.2d 1015, 1018, 499 N.Y.S.2d 388, 489 N.E.2d 1290). Finally, since Altman had a history of violations and the fraud herein directly impacted upon public safety, the penalty of divestiture was not “so disproportionate to the offense ․ as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness” (Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., supra, 34 N.Y.2d at 233, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 27, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)