Last Updated on January 22, 2023 by Lawrence Berezin
Fighting parking tickets made easier.
Fighting NYC parking tickets isn’t a walk in Central Park. It takes time, knowledge, and creativity to outwit warriors, cops, and rogue judges.
However, you don’t want to lose a case because you made a mistake. There are only so many bullets your foot can withstand.
Here are some common mistakes you can eliminate.
Place of Occurrence misstep when fighting a parking ticket
Much to his dismay, Joe got an expensive no-standing ticket. However, carefully reviewing the front of the parking ticket, he discovered that the warrior misdescribed the place of occurrence. Joe didn’t park in front of 160 W28th street. Instead, he parked in front of the service entrance of 315 7th Avenue on W28th Street (aka 162 W28th Street).
Joe immediately jumped on his cell phone and fought the parking ticket. He wrote:
The place of occurrence was wrong. I was parked on W28th Street in front of the service entrance of 315 7th Avenue. Further, he took a photo of his car parked in front of the correct location.”
Joe
Did Joe win his parking ticket fight?
Nope. Why not? Let me count the reasons why.
Joe:
- Omitted the date and time he took the photo of his car
- Failed to include the address of his car in the photo
- He overlooked displaying his license plate in the photo
Here’s what winning defense exhibits should look like
Parking meter zone and meter number blunders
Firstly, I want to understand the difference between the meter zone and the number. Why? Because there are different required elements for different parking meter tickets. For example:
- Expired parking-the parking meter number is a required element.
- Overtime parking-The parking zone number and time first observed.
- Failure to Display-the parking meter or zone numbers are NOT required elements.
Here are two ways to check the accuracy of the zone number:
- The NYC Metered Parking Map
- The DOT Parking Regulations Map
The appeal burden of proof gaffe
Joe lost his parking ticket fight with the original judge. Likewise, he decided to appeal the bad decision. Great, but what is your strategy on appeal, Joe? Do you know the burden of proof on appeal?
Joe’s reply: “I will repeat what I argued before the original judge, but write it louder. The appeals panel will make the right decision.”
Larry’s reply: “I don’t think so, Joe. Maybe you should reassess your strategy.”
Joe was required to prove his defense by a preponderance of the evidence before the original judge. That is “more likely than not.” In other words, tip the scales of justice by one emoji, and you win. However, in life, it is not that easy. So, be prepared to appeal an unjust decision by a rogue judge.
However, Joe’s burden of proof on appeal is to persuade the appeals panel that the original judge made a mistake of law or fact when reaching her decision. That is to say; you have to identify one or more errors and explain why it was an error. Please do not regurgitate your original defense.
Here’s a sample of a judge’s bad decision.
Judges Decision:
“Respondent is charged with violating Traffic Rule 4-08(l)(3)(ii) by standing a vehicle in any space on a block where signs are posted designating a commercial parking metered area unless such vehicle is a “commercial vehicle” as defined in section 4-01(b)(i) of the traffic rules or a vehicle with a valid “combination” registration from another state, and unless space is controlled by a parking meter.
Respondent denies the violation charged. This is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof rests with the Respondent. The respondent’s claim that the vehicle was not parked at the cited location is not supported by persuasive evidence. Additionally, it is
noted that the Respondent did not question the vehicle description on the summons (license plate number, vehicle make, etc.), which supports the fact that the officer saw the vehicle.
Guilty.
The first and best place to look for mistakes in law or facts is in the original judge’s bad decision.
The above decision has some typical errors. For example:
-This is a glaringly improper “net” opinion. A judge must support his decision with facts, law, reasoning, and rationale. Stating the respondent’s defense is “not persuasive” without more will not pass muster on appeal. The judge’s decision was a classic “net” opinion, and this verdict should be reversed on appeal.
-This original judge ignored the driver’s defense. That is to say, the judge made up a defense, substituted his made-up defense for the driver’s defense, and found the driver guilty. Amazing!
The driver’s defense was simply that the place of occurrence was misdescribed. The driver never denied getting a parking ticket.
Commentary
Warriors and cops issued approximately 10M parking tickets before COVID-19. They generated about $600M in revenue. Meanwhile, drivers only fought roughly 3M tickets. But, the surprising stat is that judges dismissed circa 50% of those tickets. Parking ticket judges dismissed 1.5M tickets. And that statistic is worth repeating.
If you take the time to fight unjust parking tickets, the chances are pretty good you will win. That is to say, fighting parking tickets is not an exercise in futility. However, It is frustrating to me that drivers pay 70% of all parking tickets “no questions asked.” Why? Your $115 donation to the Evil Empire Fund isn’t even tax-deductible.
Remember, in Parking Ticket Land, two wrongs don’t make a right. Even if you violated a parking rule, a warrior or cop must enter the required elements correctly. Consequently, if you find an omitted, misdescribed, or illegible required element, you win (subject to presenting the proper proof, properly).
When you’re right, fight!
Regarding appeal of a “net” opinion, I am curious whether a guilty verdict which I received would fall into that category. (Unfortunately, this was several years ago, so it is too late for me to file an appeal.)
I received a ticket for violation of street cleaning (alternate side parking) rules, despite the fact that a had a valid NYC parking permit for the physically disabled displayed in my windshield as per the DOT instructions for using the permit. The ALJ issued a guilty verdict, in which he stated that while I had successfully proven that I was the holder of a valid permit, I had failed to prove that I had the permit displayed when the ticket was issued. I felt that this was an arbitrary and illogical ruling, since it defies logic to assume that someone would go through the difficult process of obtaining the permit and then would not display it. I also felt that proving that it was displayed at the time the ticket was issued was an unreasonable task, since the only way to do so would be for me to be present when the ticket was issued, in order to photograph the traffic agent actually placing the ticket on the car with the permit visible. After all, any other photograph of the permit in my windshield would only prove that it was displayed when the photo was taken, but would not definitively prove that it was displayed when the ticket was issued.
It is my understanding that showing a parking meter receipt that was in effect at the time that a parking meter violation is issued is considered to be an affirmative defense, without having to prove that the receipt was displayed. I feel that the rule for using a PPPD should be the same: As long as you can prove that a valid PPPD was in effect for the license plate to which the ticket was issued at the time that it was issued, that should be considered an affirmative defense.
Hi Mike,
Good afternoon.
Thanks for your excellent, well-reasoned comment.
I totally agree with your recommendation.
Here’s a little background noise:
-The prior law regarding the display of parking time receipts was that a driver had to prove the receipt was displayed on the dash when the ticket was issued. However, for the reasons you so ably articulated, rogue judges found drivers guilty despite proof of payment. Subsequently, the law was amended. Now, all you have to do is prove payment and a judge must dismiss the failure to display tickets.
Fast forward to your situation. Since there is no specific law or rule that mandates a dismissal when the owner of the car has a PPPD, but obviously can’t prove “display,” rogue judges abuse this loophole. The best solution may be a rule or law change to mandate a dismissal if the owner of the car proves he/she had a valid PPPD.
Meanwhile, the rogue judge’s decision was not a “net” opinion in your case. It was just a bad, unjust decision.
Be safe. Mike.
Regards,
Larry