Valuable information about an NYC parking ticket that will save you money
I still answer questions on Larry’s Blog, although I’m getting older, slower, and limit my replies to the questions that help us all fight an NYC parking ticket. For example, if you ask me whether the plate type is a required element for a vehicle registered in another state. I’m happy to answer it. Great question…Helpful to all of us.
But, I’m not going to answer, “I got a no standing parking ticket, how can I beat it?”
If I don’t need to look at the parking ticket and investigate it to reply with the advice you can count on, then sure, I’ll try to answer it (as long as there aren’t a bunch of subparts).
Members of the driving public asked the following questions. Hopefully, the answers will help you beat unjust parking tickets
Is the plate type of an out-of-state vehicle a required element?
Yes, but there is a different standard of proof for a chariot registered in another state versus a chariot registered in NYC.
A plate type was misdescribed for a NY vehicle if the warrior’s entry did not match the plate type on the sticker/registration. However, if the plate type for an out-of-state car was not visible on the plate, a warrior was not required to enter the plate type. The correct entry would be “N/S” for not shown (or “N/A” for not applicable).
The tiny box below the plate type cannot be left empty. Or, if the warrior guesses and entered the wrong plate type, you win subject to presenting the proper proof, properly.
Here is a list of common plate types used by NY to classify motor vehicles.
Is the body type of an out-of-state vehicle a required element?
Yes, but again, there is a different standard of proof applied to a car registered in another state versus a car registered in NYC.
The body type was misdescribed for a NY car if the warrior’s entry did not match the body type of the sticker/registration. However, the Evil Empire applied a different rule for the body type of vehicles registered in another state. The body type entered by a warrior must be “reasonably accurate,” not an exact match. For example, a parking ticket judge may decide that a 4DSD is a reasonably accurate description of an SUBN (Suburban).
It’s up to us to persuade a judge or an appeals panel the reasons a 4DSD was not a reasonably accurate description of an SUBN. This is a difficult challenge and in my humble opinion, conflicts with the decisions of the NY State court of appeals court.
Will Dominic’s defense beat this NYC parking ticket?
Dominic posed this question:
I was issued a ticket for parking at a temporary construction zone on a block. Though the temporary signs were bent and unclear, I would have otherwise been legally parked according to the “normal” signs.
However, the violation cited is Section 4-08(d), which covers parking sign violations and NOT temporary posted regulations (construction, paper signs, or otherwise), which are clearly only addressed in Section 4-08(a). Since this is a “required element”, I have tried to fight this online. I am waiting for a decision, but have you ever had a ticket dismissed due to the improper NYC Traffic Rule being cited? It is an element that the officer must fill in.
All the best, and thank you!
Here’s my reply:
The Warriors generally handle this type of ticket as follows:
-If it’s a general no parking violation, the rule is 4-08(d)
-If the rule is temporary due to construction, they will enter “temporary construction” in the comment section
Did you raise the invisible, unreadable, or confusing sign defense?
Dominic asked a great question, especially since the rule and subpart contained in 4-08(a) pertain to temporary signs. Here are the relevant portions:
Was the rule misdescribed?
Here’s Joanne’s question, which was a little too broad (and I hate subparts!), but still allowed me to share some helpful advice:
How have you been since the heart attack in 2015? I hope that the recent responses to some on your blog mean you are back and kicking with a vengeance!
Thank you for your wealth of knowledge, the information above has been quite helpful.
Needless to say, I received a ticket b/c I forgot to move a friend’s vehicle from a no standing zone (M-F 7 am –9 am).
If the ticket online corresponds with my tangible one, then I would like to argue that the violation 4-08 (c) in which I was cited for is misdescribed/missing an element because it is a bus lane; whereas 4-08(c)(3) is the proper violation.
4-08 (c) has eight violations in which I am not all guilty for. Does this angle work? Personally, If it’s a general citation the office is using then I’d argue that 4-08 (f)(4) would have been àpropos.
Please let me know your advice on the matter. In addition, in the event that the attempt is declined, should I also submit proof of hardship for a reduced fine in the dispute, or would I have a chance to do so after the decision?
Thanks so much!
Larry’s reply (that’s me):
Thanks for your well-wishes.
You are on the road to victory…The correct citation for bus lane is 4-08(f)(4). Your challenge will be to prove that there was, in fact, a bus lane regulating the place of occurrence.
I’ve noticed a pretty big upswing in the number of drivers asking me to help them appeal a bad decision by the Evil Empire. When I review their:
- Defense statement
- Judge’s written decision
I oftentimes find these wonderful people shot first and asked questions later. In other words, they did not do their homework before submitting their defense stuff. Your defense is dead on arrival if you make up defenses that:
- Are not recognized as winning defenses by the Evil Empire
- Are not certified
- Tell a long story that cries the blues with that does not include a proof that will set you and your chariot free