| Metropolitan Taxicab Bd. of Trade v New York City Taxi & LimousineCommn. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02016 [71 AD3d 508] |
| March 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade et al.,Appellants, v The New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan Paulson of counsel), forrespondents.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.),entered November 30, 2009, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78seeking to annul amendments to the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission's (TLC)rules and granted respondents' motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously affirmed, withoutcosts.
Respondent TLC is charged with establishing a public transportation policy governing thevehicle-for-hire industry as it relates to the overall public transportation network of the City ofNew York, and is vested with a broad grant of authority to promulgate and implement aregulatory program for the taxicab industry, including standards and conditions for service,safety, design, comfort, convenience, noise and air pollution control, and efficiency in theoperation of vehicles (see NY City Charter § 2300 et seq.; Matter ofNew York City Comm. for Taxi Safety v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 256AD2d 136 [1998]). Under this broad grant of authority, the TLC was authorized to amend itsrules to provide that the statutory cap imposed on the amount charged by taxicab fleet ownerswhen leasing vehicles to taxi drivers may be altered on the basis of public policy considerations.
An administrative regulation should be upheld if it has a rational basis and is notunreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the statute under which it was promulgated(see New York State Assn. of Counties v Axelrod, 78 NY2d 158, 166 [1991]). Underthis standard, the TLC was authorized to amend its rules establishing the amount of vehicle leasecaps by raising the lease amount for hybrid and fuel-efficient vehicles and lowering the leaseamount for non-fuel-efficient vehicles. In addition to being authorized under the broad scope ofthe TLC's regulatory authority, the subject amendments are rationally related to the legitimategovernmental goals of providing incentives for fleet owners to purchase fuel-efficient vehicleswhich are designed to reduce harmful emissions, and to require fleet owners to bear some of theadditional fuel costs associated with the operation of non-fuel-efficient vehicles.[*2]
Petitioners, having not sought to show during theadministrative review process that the amendments will have a detrimental economic impact onfleet owners, may not challenge the amendments on those grounds before this Court (seeMatter of Miller v Kozakiewicz, 300 AD2d 399, 400 [2002]).
Furthermore, the TLC was authorized to amend its rules to provide that taxicab leaseamounts must be calculated so that sales and rental taxes owed by taxi drivers are includedwithin the amount of the applicable statutory lease cap. The amendment is aimed atstandardizing divergent practices regarding the payment of such taxes within the vehicle-for-hireindustry, as demonstrated in the record. Contrary to petitioners' argument, the amendments donot conflict with applicable provisions of the Tax Law.
There being rational bases for the TLC's amendments at issue, we reject the claim that theamendments were enacted in retaliation for petitioners' commencement of federal courtproceedings alleging preemption. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Catterson, McGuire, Acostaand Renwick, JJ. [Prior Case History: 27 Misc 3d 254.]