"No Parking Anytime" ticket issued for "No Standing Anytime" sign in Queens, NY

[nyyanks81]

I am from Queens, NY and I was issued a ticket by an agent while in my car and I was parked right behind a No standing anytime sign and the agent issued me a ticket for No parking anytime. Can I fight this ticket since there is no "No parking anytime" sign where I was parked at? Any thoughts on this? It's a $60 fine. Should I bother?

[PrinceCharming]

Fight it. The law states that the correct violation must be written on the ticket. Since the officer wrote the incorrect violation, the testimony of the ticket is considered invalid.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by PrinceCharming

Fight it. The law states that the correct violation must be written on the ticket. Since the officer wrote the incorrect violation, the testimony of the ticket is considered invalid.

Ahhh, princey - why don't you ask what the code section violated was? It's not the words written on the ticket so much as the code section. (Parking is standing in this case, so either would be valid.)
Without knowing the exaction code violated, how can you answer so surely?

[PrinceCharming]

Based on what the OP wrote, I don't need the code. The OP said the the ticket was a "No Parking Anytime for the amount of $60" The code written on the ticket should be 4-08 (d).

It doesn't matter if he went on vacation and was parked there for a week . The bottom line is that based on what the OP wrote there is no sign "No Parking" and the ticket is considered defective.

[justalayman]

Ya, good luck with that one prince.

yanks, let us know what happens on this one, would ya??

Somebody should look up the definitions of standing and parking. If you'all want to play silly games, you need to know how they differ and if the different definitions make any difference.

[nyyanks81]

Just to clarify:

The ticket states as follows:

In Violation of Sect. 4-08 (Subsect. Below) of NYC Traffic Rules
No Parking (d)
DAYS/HRS: ALL DAYS/ALL TIMES

VC (Violation Code): 20

The sign where I was (the address of the place of occurance listed on the ticket) is a red NO STANDING ANYTIME sign

[You Are Guilty]

You'd think this stuff would be self-explanatory, but... oh well.

Parking: The standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading property or passengers.

Standing: The stopping of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in receiving or discharging passengers.
(http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/pdf/trafrule.pdf)


Personally, I'd think twice about contesting this one and foregoing your automatic 20% settlement, but hey, it's your money.

[justalayman]

those two defintions sound an awful lot alike to me.

what I read from it is,they both are the same thing and you would be guilty of either or both unless actively discharging or recieving a passenger.

but from further dissection, if you were guilty of being parked, then you are also guilty of standing.

So, since you were ticketed for being parked, you were obviously standing as well. I don;t know about New York but a charge can be initiated after the fact in my area up to about 1 year in most situations.

You may get away with contesting the violation as written but by arguing the point, you will be admitting to the standing violation.

Doesn;t sound like a winner of a situation to me.

I believe I would take YAG's advice. He does this for a living and actually lives over there somewhere. I think I would listen to him.

[You Are Guilty]

To borrow a term from the criminal world, standing is a "lesser included offense" of parking. The difference between the two, believe it or not, is the "packages" (one lets you take out your groceries, the other does not).

If you contest the ticket by claiming you were "only" parking, not "standing", you actually just pled guilty to both. Thus, unless you like gambling with the PVB, take the easy money and settle the ticket.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by You Are Guilty

To borrow a term from the criminal world, standing is a "lesser included offense" of parking.

that's what I was thinking of. That's why you make the bucks. I can;t remember all of that stuff as well as what it takes to do my job.

[You Are Guilty]

Originally Posted by justalayman

that's what I was thinking of. That's why you make the bucks. I can;t remember all of that stuff as well as what it takes to do my job.

I actually don't do a lick of criminal or traffic law for "work" - my knowledge here came about as a necessary response to living in the same county as the OP and getting enough parking tickets to personally finance NYC's budget. If anything, it's a nice distraction from my "real" work, lol.

[PrinceCharming]

New York City Administrative Code -
Title 19
Transportation


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



§ 19–204 Notice of violation. a. The notice of violation shall contain information advising the person charged of the manner and the time in which he or she may plead either guilty or not guilty to the charge alleged in the notice. Such notice of violation shall also contain a warning to advise the person charged that failure to plead in the manner and time provided shall be deemed, for all purposes, an admission of liability and that a default judgment may be rendered. The form and wording of the notice of violation shall be prescribed by the director. A copy of each notice of violation served shall be filed and retained by the bureau, and shall be deemed a record kept in the ordinary course of business, and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein.
b. The notice of violation shall be served personally upon the operator of a motor vehicle who is present at the time of service, and his or her name, together with the license designation as shown by the registration plates on said vehicle, shall be inserted therein. 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 motor vehicle bearing license" may be inserted to be followed by the license designation as shown by the registration plates on said vehicle. Service of the notice of violation 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.
c. For purposes of this section, an operator of a motor vehicle who is not the owner thereof but who uses or operates such vehicle with the permission of the owner, express or implied, shall be deemed to be the agent of such owner to receive notices of violation, whether personally served on such operator or served by affixation in the manner aforesaid, and service made in either manner as herein provided shall also be deemed to be lawful service upon such owner.

[justalayman]

hey prince, YAG is an attorney in New York. I would seriously take his advice if I were the OP.

You can post anything you want (even if it does not change things). The letter of the law is one thing but how the courts are currently bending it is what rules.

What you posted actually confirms what I stated. If the prima facia evidence is the OP was parked, and as YAG stated, standing would be considered a lesser included offense, then since the OP was parking, he was also standing so he is guilty of doing something in that parking space he was not supposed to be doing.

If standing is not allowed, the surely parking cannot be allowable either.

Now if you want to post something, post the supporting rules for this statement of yours:

Fight it. The law states that the correct violation must be written on the ticket. Since the officer wrote the incorrect violation, the testimony of the ticket is considered invalid.

[PrinceCharming]

There is no place in the Transportation Section that would support or refute my point. However, there is a requirement that the correct place of occurance be written on the ticket. I recieved a double parking ticket and the officer wrote the wrong Avenue. I was found not guilty.

There is no requirement for the OP to testify. The OP could claim that the address must be incorrect because there is no sign that says No Parking on the ticket.

Or, the OP could do what I have done. Give the story with a conversation with the police officer. I usually get the ticket dismissed before I get a reduced offer.

If not for YAG, I would have helped him finance NYC's budget. I have not paid one parking ticket since Nov 2006.

[url]http://www.nysscpa.org/prof_library/city2000/deptfinancepubs/pvo_itslaw_00.pdf[/url]

[url]http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/pdf/07pdf/parking_guide.pdf[/url]

or

Title 34, Chapter 4-08

[url]http://24.97.137.100/nyc/rcny/entered.htm[/url]

[You Are Guilty]

It is true that, under the law, if you are physically present when the ticket is written, you are supposed to be personally served (and there are check boxes on the ticket to indicate if you refuse service just for this point). However, its exceedingly hit or miss if you challenge the ticket on those grounds and I'd wager most ALJs won't dismiss the ticket - even if you have a legit defense. My guess is that, as a practical matter, its a very simple defense, which requires little, if any, proof to make, and would result in every ticket being dismissed. I've personally "testified" about the parking agent who issued the ticket (name, physical description, badge number) only to have the ALJ uphold the ticket saying "insufficient proof of lack of service". I suppose short of a movie of you getting the ticket, you're taking your chances with this defense.

As far as the location and violation needing to be correct, that is true, no argument. The problem is that standing and parking are so interrelated, you can't defend a no standing violation by claiming you were "parked". In other words, to make the argument that the ticket has the wrong violation and needs to be dismissed (because you were parked), then you just admitted you were guilty of standing. It's a catch-22.