Another NYC traffic ticket

[drburka]

So, this past weekend I parked at 53rd and 8th. Admittedly the sign read "No standing except commercial vehicles, metered parking 3 hours time limit except Sundays". I read the sign as two seperate statements meaning that I could park and not stand. After some thought it is impossible to stand without parking. So, when I came out of the theatre my car was gone. Needless to say it was towed. After paying a $185 towing fee and waiting 5 hours to get the car out of the impound (long story but the car is not registered to me and as such they wouldn't release it to me) I found another another surprise waiting - a $115 ticket.

I was temporarily relieved when I realized the ticket described the body type of my Mini Cooper as a "2DSD" (meaning a 2 door sedan). The mini cooper is not a sedan it is a hatchback. Additionally, I noted that the ticket stated under "exp. date" for expiration of the registration "N/S". The sticker on my virginia liscence plates clearly show that the tags expire in "'06". Finally, the VIN was left blank even though this number does appear in the drivers side window. So, although frustrated by the ordeal and the outrageously discourteus NYPD at the impound lot, I was happy that I would be able to have the ticket dismissed on the grounds the it is "defective" (and ultimately have my impound fee refunded).

Today I went to court in an attempt to have the ticket dismissed and presented the case to the judge. He did not agree and in his decision wrote "Summons reviewed and is legally adequate, information contained in summons is sufficiently legible. Vehicle is adequately identified. Description of body type is not considered to be unreasonable. Claim that the registration expiration date was available to officer at the time of the summons is not found persuasive. The summons is sustatined."

Information I found at https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?p=1399744 leads me to believe the judge erred and that in fact my ticket should have been dimissed.

Should I appeal? If so, what are my chances? It seems so straight forward to me, but what recourse do I have if the judge is again so cavalier in his dismissal?

I very much appreciate all of your help!

 

[You Are Guilty]

But for the fact that you were intelligent enough to do a quick search before posting, I was going to leave a snide comment. But since I'd like to encourage more smart posts, I'll be nice.

Unfortunately, it's still bad news. If you re-read the links in the post you cited, you'll note that body style is a "dismissable" error - unlike other fields (like plate number) there's no requirement that it be dismissed if incorrect. Similarly, while the reggy for NYS-registered vehicles needs to be the full date, the same does not apply to out-of-state cars - it too is a "dismissable" error that is not mandated. The VIN doesn't even need to be included on NYS cars (unless the plate is missing), so that's a non-starter.

So as far as an appeal goes, you really have nothing to lose - odds are you're going to have to pay the fine anyway. The PVB is not big on reversing "judgment calls" like the ones in your decision, so I'd give you pretty crappy odds of winning, but even crappy odds are better than no odds I suppose. If you do appeal, enclose pictures which clearly show your registration date on the car (and include wide shots which show that the reggy sticker is in fact on your car. Maybe a shot with both the plate and the reggy).

Did you request a settlement before contesting the ticket? I'm pretty sure No standing's are eligible and you could have saved almost $30...

 

[drburka]

"You are guilty", thanks for the reply and I appreciate your input. It seems the thread I referenced has two documents that each conflict each other. The PDF file: http://www.nysscpa.org/prof_library/city2000/deptfinancepubs/pvo_itslaw_00.pdf
uses the word "can" when discussing the body type of the vehicle. However, it uses the word MUST when referring to the expiration date. As noted VIN is not an issue and as such I will not address it any further in this thread.

The other document referenced is New York Vehicle Traffic Law 238. That document can be found here: http://law.onecle.com/new-york/vehicle-and-traffic/VAT0238_238.html
This document I don't believe is as ambiguous. It states that the expiration date and body type of the vehicle are requirements on a ticket. It also says that the ticket shall be dismissed if these are not addressed appropriately. It even goes so far as to say that if the expiration date is either not available or not legible then the ticketing officer must note this on the ticket. I have cut and pasted the relevant portions of this document below and have also bolded the relevant passages.

2. A notice of violation shall be served personally upon the operator
of a motor vehicle who is present at the time of service, and his name,
together with the plate designation and the plate type as shown by the
registration plates of said vehicle and the expiration date; the make or
model, and body type of said vehicle; a description of the charged
violation, including but not limited to a reference to the applicable
traffic rule or provision of this chapter; information as to the days
and hours the applicable rule or provision of this chapter is in effect,
unless always in effect pursuant to rule or this chapter and where
appropriate the word ALL when the days and/or hours in effect are
everyday and/or twenty-four hours a day; the meter number for a meter
violation, where appropriate; and the date, time and particular place of
occurrence of the charged violation, shall be inserted therein. A mere
listing of a meter number in cases of charged meter violations shall not
be deemed to constitute a sufficient description of a particular place
of occurrence for purposes of this subdivision. The notice of violation
shall be served upon the owner of the motor vehicle if the operator is
not present, by affixing such notice to said vehicle in a conspicuous
place. Whenever such notice is so affixed, in lieu of inserting the name
of the person charged with the violation in the space provided for the
identification of said person, the words "owner of the vehicle bearing
license" may be inserted to be followed by the plate designation and
plate type as shown by the registration plates of said vehicle together
with the expiration date; the make or model, and body type of said
vehicle; a description of the charged violation, including but not
limited to a reference to the applicable traffic rule or provision of
this chapter; information as to the days and hours the applicable rule
or provision of this chapter is in effect unless always in effect
pursuant to rule or this chapter and where appropriate the word ALL when
the days and/or hours in effect are every day and/or twenty-four hours a
day; the meter number for a meter violation where appropriate; and the
date, time and particular place of occurrence of the charged violation.
Service of the notice of violation, or a duplicate thereof by affixation
as herein provided shall have the same force and effect and shall be
subject to the same penalties for disregard thereof as though the same
was personally served with the name of the person charged with the
violation inserted therein.

2-a. (a) Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of subdivision two
of this section, where the plate type or the expiration date are not
shown on either the registration plates or sticker of a vehicle or where
the registration sticker is covered, faded, defaced or mutilated so that
it is unreadable, the plate type or the expiration date may be omitted
from the notice of violation; provided, however, such condition must be
so described and inserted on the notice of violation.

(b) If any information which is required to be inserted on a notice of
violation is omitted from the notice of violation, misdescribed, or
illegible, the violation shall be dismissed upon application of the
person charged with the violation.

I am certainly NOT a lawyer. Nonetheless, the first document (the PDF file) seems only to be a paraphrasing of the law by the department of finance. It was intended to educate motorists of their rights so they would not have to slug through the legal text. In actuality it probably further sullied the issue and instead imported poor information. The second document to me appears to be the law in its full form and it does not appear ambiguous in its dealings of this issue.

Am I misinterperating something here? It seems the law does not give judges any leeway in determing if a ticket was adequately written. Yet in deciding my case Judge Cecil R. Rowe wrote "Vehicle is adequately identified. Description of body type is not considered to be unreasonable. Claim that registration expiration date was available to officer at the time of the summons is not found persuasive." It seems judge Rowe went outside the bounds in Vehicle Traffic Law 238 in offering his opinion on the matter rather than following the law.

So, my questions now are:
1. How do I present this to a new judge in a manner that does not make me seem like an arrogant now-it-all?
2. Am I misinterperating this entirely?
3. If I am interperating this correctly (I offer this question more for debate and knowing that the lawyers will likely jump through my computer screen in an effort to terminate my existence): What systems are in place to reprimand judges from making such poor decisions? It seems that allowing a judge to render such an opinion when the law so clearly dictates otherwise essentially enables the judge to render opinions based on his personal opinion of defendant. I'm a surgeon and if I misinterpret a book I read and in doing so treat a patient incorrectly (regardless of malignant intent) am liable for prison (depending upon the consequences of my action). So, what similar regulations are in place to insure that judges are not grossly negligent? Finally, please don't tell me that's why appeals are available because most people would not have the stamina or inclination to follow such a item to appeal. That's a bit like my saying if the patient doesn't get good care from me he can always seek a second opinion from another doctor - that doesn't condone my poor treatment.

On a final note, I was offered a reduced settlement on the ticket (30%). So, the ticket would have been ~$85 but I would not have received a refund on the impound fee (185$). So I still would have been paying $270. Yes, I would have saved $30 but I didn't go to court to save $30 and lose $270.

Thoughts?

 

[You Are Guilty]

"You are guilty", thanks for the reply and I appreciate your input. It seems the thread I referenced has two documents that each conflict each other. ...
I am certainly NOT a lawyer. Nonetheless, the first document (the PDF file) seems only to be a paraphrasing of the law by the department of finance. It was intended to educate motorists of their rights so they would not have to slug through the legal text. In actuality it probably further sullied the issue and instead imported poor information. The second document to me appears to be the law in its full form and it does not appear ambiguous in its dealings of this issue.

Am I misinterperating something here? It seems the law does not give judges any leeway in determing if a ticket was adequately written. Yet in deciding my case Judge Cecil R. Rowe wrote "Vehicle is adequately identified. Description of body type is not considered to be unreasonable. Claim that registration expiration date was available to officer at the time of the summons is not found persuasive." It seems judge Rowe went outside the bounds in Vehicle Traffic Law 238 in offering his opinion on the matter rather than following the law.

Calling a Mini "2DR" is going to be adequate identification. The SDN (vs. CPE) designation is not going to nullify the fact that you still only have 2-doors (hatch notwithstanding. I don't even think there's a 'hatchback' designation). So that appears to be the basis for the "adequately identified" statement.

However, you are (technically) correct that the unknown reggy date should have been indicated. They are not supposed to leave it blank - while they are not required to search all out-of-state vehicles to determine the reggy expiration date, they are still supposed to note the missing info. As you've found out, being technically (or even legally) correct is not an impediment for the PVB to find you guilty anyway.

So, my questions now are:
1. How do I present this to a new judge in a manner that does not make me seem like an arrogant now-it-all?

I find crying hysterically works well. Barring that, simply set forth, in plain, simple English, what you've written above noting that the statute mandates the reggy date or some other marking showing it was missing, and that leaving that section blank is a fatal flaw requiring dismissal by statute. Sign and notarize it. Then pray to the deity of your choice as being right on the law doesn't mean your ticket will be dismissed.

2. Am I misinterperating this entirely?

As noted, maybe on the body type, but probably not on the expiration date.

3. If I am interperating this correctly (I offer this question more for debate and knowing that the lawyers will likely jump through my computer screen in an effort to terminate my existence): What systems are in place to reprimand judges from making such poor decisions?

Heh. The PVB is a 'black hole' when it comes to the law. In theory, an appeal is the recourse for such behavior. In practice, the PVB is merely yet one more way to separate you from your money.

It seems that allowing a judge to render such an opinion when the law so clearly dictates otherwise essentially enables the judge to render opinions based on his personal opinion of defendant. I'm a surgeon and if I misinterpret a book I read and in doing so treat a patient incorrectly (regardless of malignant intent) am liable for prison (depending upon the consequences of my action). So, what similar regulations are in place to insure that judges are not grossly negligent?

The person you met is an ALJ, Administrative Law Judge. In English, that translates to "lawyer". I have been told, but have no proof, that their compensation bears a direct relationship to the amount of fines they issue. (However, given that I have racked up nearly 60 parking tickets in the last 15 years or so, my personal experience makes me tend to believe this). The "real" judges of the appeals board rolleyes do not share the same compensation package, so one hopes they will do the "right" thing.

Finally, please don't tell me that's why appeals are available because most people would not have the stamina or inclination to follow such a item to appeal. That's a bit like my saying if the patient doesn't get good care from me he can always seek a second opinion from another doctor - that doesn't condone my poor treatment.

No argument from me - I didn't set up the system, and in fact, have subsidized it far beyond my fair share over the years. I can show you dozens of valid, legal defenses to tickets that were shot down by both the ALJ and the appeals board. I can also offer one solitary ticket which was dismissed based on a "discretionary" error.

On a final note, I was offered a reduced settlement on the ticket (30%). So, the ticket would have been ~$85 but I would not have received a refund on the impound fee (185$). So I still would have been paying $270. Yes, I would have saved $30 but I didn't go to court to save $30 and lose $270.

I find that it helps (on a philosophical level at least) to just think of the tickets as the NYC Parking Tax.

Thoughts?

I try to avoid them when dealing with parking tickets. They have no place in the PVB.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Please refrain from posting on threads that are seven years old!

Hey, let the man speak, this sounds important!


(NB: In the future, a private message would probably be a better idea)