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.
IN RE: Application of GOLD KEY LEASE, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, For a Judgment, etc., v. The CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU, Respondent-Respondent. (Action No. 1)
IN RE: Application of Ford Motor Credit Co., et al., Petitioners-Appellants, For a Judgment, etc., v. The City of New York Department of Finance Parking Violations Bureau, Respondent-Respondent. (Action No. 2)
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered July 19, 1999, which denied applications and dismissed petitions challenging, pursuant to CPLR article 78, various decisions of the Appeal Board of respondent Parking Violations Bureau upholding summonses for parking violations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Insofar as respondent agency generally interprets Vehicle and Traffic Law § 238(2-a) as permitting “not available” as a description of a condition preventing an issuing officer from listing the vehicle registration expiration date on a parking summons, this Court will defer to that interpretation of the statute. Respondent has a rational basis for presuming that vehicles with New York State registration have the full registration date on display, based on the format of windshield stickers issued by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, while not making that presumption as to vehicles registered in other States. For that reason, and because the presumption is limited out of concern for a legitimate governmental purpose, the challenged policy does not offend equal protection principles (see, D'Amico v. Crosson, 93 N.Y.2d 29, 31-32, 686 N.Y.S.2d 756, 709 N.E.2d 465). No fundamental privilege is at stake and residents and non-residents are put on substantially equal footing, satisfying the requirements of the Privileges & Immunities Clause (see, City of New York v. State of New York, 94 N.Y.2d 577, 593, 709 N.Y.S.2d 122, 730 N.E.2d 920). We have considered petitioners' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: October 12, 2000
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)