Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Yazici OATH Index No. 1457/16 (Apr. 12, 2016) In default taxi licensing case, taxi driver found to have overcharged and threatened a female passenger and to have overcharged another male passenger. ALJ recommended that respondent’s license be revoked and that he be fined $6,000. _____________________________________________________ NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS In the Matter of TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION Petitioner -againstIBRAHIM YAZICI Respondent _____________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JOHN B. SPOONER, Administrative Law Judge Petitioner, the Taxi and Limousine Commission, (“TLC”), brought this discretionary license revocation proceeding against respondent, Ibrahim Yazici, a taxi driver, under sections 54-12(e), 54-12(f), and 54-12(g) of title 35 of the Rules of the City of New York (“RCNY”). Petitioner alleged that, during two taxi rides in January 2016, respondent overcharged and threatened a female passenger and overcharged and drove recklessly with a male passenger. On March 11 and 31, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., petitioner appeared by counsel but respondent did not appear. Petitioner submitted proof of service on respondent of the petition and notices of the two hearing dates at the address respondent provided to the Commission (Pet. Exs. 1 and 11). In addition, respondent was notified of the March 11 trial date during a conference call on February 23, 2016, when he failed to appear for a scheduled conference. He was also sent emails (Pet. Exs. 1 and 11) by both Commission counsel and by this tribunal confirming the trial dates. Based upon these records, I found respondent in default and the trial proceeded in the form of an inquest.

-2Petitioner presented the testimony of the two passengers. Based upon this proof, I find that the violations should be sustained and recommend that respondent’s taxi license be revoked and that he be fined $6,000.

ANALYSIS Petitioner’s proof rested upon the testimony of two witnesses, Mr. Carroll and Ms. Fanning. The witnesses described similar trips with respondent from LaGuardia Airport to their home for which respondent overcharged them, was menacing and rude, drove recklessly.

January 2, 2016 Trip Mr. Carroll works in corporate finance and lives on East 29th Street in Manhattan. At several minutes before midnight on January 2, 2016, he and his wife flew into LaGuardia Airport from a ski trip to Colorado. They saw a yellow taxi parked near the door, but not at a taxi stand, and the driver waved them over. They loaded their bags and sports equipment into the taxi, filling the trunk and part of the back seat. When they started to move, the driver told them he would charge a flat fee of $45. Mr. Carroll knew this was in excess of the regular fare to Manhattan and asked the driver to turn on the meter (Tr. 42-43). At this, the driver pulled over and shouted to his passengers to “get the hell out” or accept the fare. Weary from the trip and not wanting to load all their bags into another cab, Mr. Carroll and his wife agreed to pay. The driver drove down the Brooklyn Queens Expressway and across to Manhattan, speeding, not signaling changes of lanes, and cutting other drivers off (Tr. 43-45). When they arrived on 29th Street, the driver said that his machine was not working and that he would have to run the credit card through his mobile phone application. Mr. Carroll’s wife paid with her credit card and Mr. Carroll produced the receipt (Pet. Ex. 12) his wife received from the driver for $45 fare plus a $5 tip. Mr. Carroll memorized the taxicab medallion number of 2N58 and, when he got to his apartment, called 311 to complain about the taxi driver (Tr. 45-48). He was on the telephone from 45 to 60 minutes (Tr. 49), relating an account which is summarized in a computerized complaint form (Pet. Ex. 13) from the Commission database. On the trip sheet (Pet. Ex. 14) for medallion number 2N58, respondent is identified as the driver from 5:50 p.m. on January 2, 2016, until around 12:30 a.m. on January 3, 2016. The vehicle route locater shows that the cab was at LaGuardia Airport at 11:42 p.m. and then traveled

-3to Manhattan around East 29th Street, arriving at around midnight. At 11:52 p.m., the cab was traveling at 69 miles per hour on Interstate 278 and at 11:53 p.m. it was traveling at 68 miles per hour on Interstate 495. I take judicial notice that the speed limits for these two highways are 40 miles per hour (ALJ. Ex. 1). According to a Google map (Pet. Ex. 15), the distance from LaGuardia Airport to East 29th Street is 9.1 miles. Counsel for petitioner calculated that with tolls the fare for this trip should have been no more than $31.84, making the overcharge approximately $13 (Tr. 54). Mr. Carroll was a credible witness.

His testimony concerning the taxi trip with

respondent was corroborated by the receipt, by the trip log, and by his prompt complaint to the Commission. Based upon this evidence, I find that, on January 2, 2016, at around 11:45 p.m., respondent picked up Mr. Carroll and his wife at LaGuardia Airport and, once they were inside his taxicab, demanded that they pay a $45 flat fare. When Mr. Carroll questioned the legality of this fare, respondent told them to “get the hell out” or accept the fare. Driving from LaGuardia Airport to East 29th Street in Manhattan, respondent drove 69 miles per hour on the Brooklyn Queens Expressway (Interstate 278) and 68 miles per hour on the Long Island Expressway (Interstate 495). Respondent charged Mr. Carroll and his wife $45 for the trip from LaGuardia Airport to East 29th Street, even though the maximum fare for this trip should have been approximately $31.84. Respondent’s shouting at Mr. Carroll and his wife to get out of the cab or agree to pay the fare demanded was in violation of Commission rule 54-15(l) (“A Driver must be courteous to passengers.”). Driving over 68 miles per hour on the Brooklyn Queens Expressway and on the Long Island Expressway violated Commission rule 54-13(a)(3)(i) (drivers must comply with existing traffic laws). Respondent’s charging of a flat fare of $45 for a trip from LaGuardia to Manhattan was in violation of Commission rule 54-17(a)(1) (“A Driver must not charge or attempt to charge a fare above the Commission-approved rates.”). All three of the specifications regarding the January 2, 2016 trip should be sustained.

January 19, 2016 Trip The second passenger, Ms. Fanning, works for a magazine and has lived in New York City since 2008. She often travels for her work. On January 19, 2016, just after midnight, she was returning to New York’s LaGuardia Airport after flying in from Chicago. She came out to

-4the curb and saw a free taxicab parked in front of her. The driver asked her if she had any bags and waved her inside the cab. Ms. Fanning gave the driver her address in the East Village. As he started to drive, the driver “mumbled” that there would be a $45 flat fare and Ms. Fanning said “OK.” Ms. Fanning said that she assumed that LaGuardia had initiated a flat fare like that she was familiar with at JFK Airport (Tr. 10-11). As they drove, Ms. Fanning checked her phone as to what the fare for an Uber cab would be and realized that it would be around $25. She then saw that respondent had not turned on his meter. She asked the driver why he was charging her $45. He said that is what it always costs. Ms. Fanning disputed this, contending the fare was usually around $25. She also asked the driver why the meter was not on (Tr. 12). At this the driver became angry and asked Ms. Fanning why she was arguing with him. He told her that “this is what you pay” for being able to skip the cab line in the cold and, if she did not want to pay the fare, she should not have agreed to do so. At this point, the driver was going 60 miles per hour south on the FDR Drive (Tr. 12). The driver then asked Ms. Fanning if she wanted him to return her to the airport. As they went under an overpass, she told the driver no but to turn the meter on and take her home. At this, the driver slammed on the brakes and stopped the cab on the shoulder of the highway, throwing Ms. Fanning into the plexiglass divider (Tr. 12-13). Ms. Fanning asked the driver, “What the fuck? Why are you stopping?” The driver screamed at Ms. Fanning that he would not drive if she argued with him like this because it made him upset and it was dangerous. He said he had had a bad day, this was his last ride, and asked why Ms. Fanning was doing this (Tr. 13-14). Ms. Fanning testified that, at this point, she noticed that the driver did not have a license displayed. She became frightened, suspecting that the driver might not be a licensed taxi driver and might harm her. She therefore told the driver she just wanted to get home and would pay the fare he requested (Tr. 14). After about three to ten minutes, the driver drove away down the FDR Drive, as Ms. Fanning searched for identifying information. She spied a small Bluetooth screen in the front of the cab with a name, which she wrote as a note on her phone as “Braham yazici” (Tr. 14-15).

-5As he drove, the driver continued to yell at Ms. Fanning that she should not have agreed to pay the fare if she was not going to do so. Ms. Fanning said that she did not want to argue and asked for silence. The driver said he was already going to do that, as he sped down the FDR, weaving back and forth through traffic. Ms. Fanning made a photo (Pet. Ex. 3) of the medallion number of 4L91 (Tr. 17). As they approached Ms. Fanning’s apartment, the driver began audibly repeating Ms. Fanning’s address, as if committing it to memory. When they arrived at her apartment, Ms. Fanning paid by credit card, which the driver ran through a handheld scanner (Tr. 20-21). After Ms. Fanning exited the cab, the driver told her, “Next time you will know better” and laughed. When she got in her apartment, Ms. Fanning immediately called 311 and reported the incident. This was recorded on a Commission complaint form (Pet. Ex. 6), recording that Ms. Fanning complained about a $45 flat fee, reckless driving, and rudeness. Ms. Fanning also sent the Commission a screenshot of her note (Pet. Ex. 2) of the driver’s name as “yazici.” At the hearing, Ms. Fanning identified respondent’s photograph from the Commission records (Pet. Ex. 4) as the driver of the taxicab on January 19 (Tr. 19-20). She also produced the receipt (Pet. Ex. 5), which was issued at 12:31 a.m. on January 19 for $45 and shows a location in the East Village. The trip records for medallion 4L91 (Pet. Ex. 7) show that respondent was driving the taxi from 5:00 p.m. on January 18 to 3:39 a.m. on January 19. Although the last fare is listed at 10:55 p.m., the GPS records show that the cab was on the Triborough Bridge at 12:20 a.m., and was southbound on the FDR Drive from 12:23 a.m. to 12:28 a.m., often going over 60 miles per hour. At 12:27 a.m., the cab was stopped on the FDR Drive around East 23rd Street. Petitioner produced a fare notice (Pet. Ex. 10) indicating that the fare to and from LaGuardia Airport is a “metered fare,” plus tolls. New York State records (Pet. Ex. 8) show that the speed limit for the FDR Drive is 40 miles per hour. Based upon the distance from LaGuardia to the East Village, the Commission produced proof (Pet. Ex. 9) indicating the fare should be approximately $34.84, approximately $10.16 more than the fare Ms. Fanning was charged. Ms. Fanning was a very credible witness, her testimony corroborated by the screenshot of respondent’s name from her phone, the taxi fare receipt, a photo of the medallion number, the trip log, and an identification of respondent’s photograph. Based upon this evidence, I find that,

-6just after midnight on January 19, 2016, respondent picked up Ms. Fanning and told her that he would charge a flat fare of $45 to drive her to Manhattan. En route, Ms. Fanning asked respondent why the fare was so high and asked him to turn on his meter. Respondent became angry, stopped the cab along the shoulder of the FDR Drive, and yelled at Ms. Fanning that he would not continue unless she agreed to pay the $45 fare. When they arrived at Ms. Fanning’s destination, respondent repeated her street address over and over and told her, “Next time you’ll know better.” Respondent charged Ms. Fanning $45, even though the maximum fare from LaGuardia Airport to the Lower East Side should have been no more than $34.84. Respondent’s stopping of the taxi and yelling at Ms. Fanning that she must pay the $45 flat fare violated Commission rule 54-15(l) (“A Driver must be courteous to passengers.”). His repeating of her address as if to memorize it, laughing, and warning her of a “next time,” violated Commission rule 54-12(f) (“Licensee must not threaten, harass, or abuse any person. . . . “). Respondent’s charging of a $45 fare for a trip that should have cost no more than $35 under Commission fare rates violated Commission rule 54-17(a)(1) (“A Driver must not charge or attempt to charge a fare above the Commission-approved rates.”). All of the charges regarding both trips should be sustained. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Charge 1 concerning a trip at around 11:45 p.m. on January 2, 2016, should be sustained in that respondent shouted at a passenger and his wife to “get the hell out” of the cab or agree to pay the fare demanded, in violation of 35 RCNY section 54-15(l). 2. Charge 2 concerning a trip at around 11:45 p.m. on January 2, 2016, should be sustained in that, respondent drove over 50 miles per hour on the Brooklyn Queens Expressway and on the Long Island Expressway in violation of 35 RCNY section 54-13(a)(3)(i). 3. Charge 3 concerning a trip at around 11:45 p.m. on January 2, 2016, should be sustained in that, respondent charged a passenger a flat fare of $45 for a trip from LaGuardia to Manhattan in violation of 35 RCNY section 54-17(a)(1). 4. Charge 1 concerning a trip at around 12:10 a.m. on January 19, 2016, should be sustained in that respondent stopped the taxi and yelled at a passenger that she must pay the $45 flat fare in violation of 35 RCNY section 54-15(l).

-75. Charge 2 concerning a trip at around 12:10 a.m. on January 19, 2016, should be sustained in that respondent repeated a passenger’s address as if to memorize it, laughed, and warned her of a “next time,” in violation of 35 RCNY section 54-12(f). 6. Charge 2 concerning a trip at around 12:10 a.m. on January 19, 2016, should be sustained in that respondent charged a $45 flat fare for a trip from LaGuardia to Manhattan in violation of 35 RCNY section 5417(a)(1).

RECOMMENDATION Upon making the above findings, I requested and received a summary of respondent’s driving record. He received his taxi driver’s license in March 2015 and, during the last year, has accumulated 18 violations, ranging from making threats, reckless driving, airport solicitation, overcharging passengers, failing to engage the meter, failure to provide a receipt, refusal, and discourtesy. He has accumulated $9,995 in fines. After he failed to appear for three hearings on outstanding violations, his license was suspended as of February 16, 2016, and then automatically revoked on February 25, 2016, and again on March 15, 2016. This extremely poor record must serve to aggravate the penalty for the multiple violations found here. There is little question that the six violations here, even without considering respondent’s sorry past history, would warrant revocation of his license. Respondent’s pattern of preying upon passengers arriving late at night at LaGuardia and trying to threaten and bully them into paying a flat fee of $45, in violation of the Commission established rates, demonstrates that he is a menace to the public. In fact, revocation is mandatory for overcharges in excess of $10, 35 RCNY § 54-02(e)(1), which the record here shows respondent did twice. When considered in light of respondent’s sorry violation history, revocation is clearly the only penalty available. In addition, for the six violations here, respondent should be fined the maximum of $1,000 per violation, for a total of $6,000. 35 RCNY § 68-13(b)(6)(C) (“The recommended penalties can include: . . . a fine not to exceed $1,000 for each offense for which a Licensed Driver is found guilty”).

-8In sum, I recommend that, for the violations found here, respondent’s taxi license be revoked and that he be fined the maximum fine of $6,000.

John B. Spooner Administrative Law Judge April 12, 2016

SUBMITTED TO: MEERA JOSHI Commissioner APPEARANCES: STAS SKARBO, ESQ. Attorney for Petitioner No Appearance by or for Respondent