Last Updated on August 2, 2020 by Lawrence Berezin
A misdescribed parking rule is a winning defense
Joe looked over the parking ticket after he snatched it from the wiper and finished cursing. However, when he glanced at the parking rule his mood changed immediately because the rule was misdescribed.
“Wow, I was charged with violating Rule 408(c)(1) No standing Taxi stand. But, Rule 4-08(c)(2) Taxi and for-hire relief stand regulated my parking space. A completely different animal. I‘m going to fight the parking ticket and win. “
Exhilarated, Joe went home and immediately prepared his winning defense. He submitted it online.
Sadly, two weeks later Joe’s bubble burst when he got the Judge’s decision, Guilty!
What went wrong?
A Rogue Judge made a bad decision
Joe fought the good fight and submitted the proper proof properly. However, one of the rogue judges in Parking Ticket Land didn’t do the right thing and found Joe guilty.
He was confident he was right and decided to continue the fight
Joe appeals the bad decision
I prepared his appeal and Joe mailed it to the appeals panel. Guess what? Joe got the decision a few months later. The original decision was reversed and the ticket was dismissed.
Here’s Joe’s original defense statement
Dear Honorable Judge,
I hereby certify as follows:
I am not guilty because:
-The rule was misdescribed. The rule that regulated the place of occurrence was 4-08(c)(2) Taxi and/or for-hire vehicle relief stand, and not 4-08(c)(1) Taxi stand.
The parking ticket described the place of occurrence as:
“Front of 3W W 31st St”, Manhattan.
I was charged with violating Rule 408(c)(1) No standing Taxi stand. But, my parking space, in front of the place of occurrence, was regulated by Rule 4-08(c)(2).
I have submitted a series of exhibits in support of my defenses.
Due to these circumstances, please dismiss this parking ticket.
Thank you.
-I hereby certify that my testimony is the truth to the best of my knowledge. I fully understand that if my testimony is willfully false, I am subject to punishment
-I certify that the images contained in the exhibits are true and accurate reproductions of the originals as they existed on the date this parking ticket was issued
-I certify that my parking space was regulated by 4-08(c)(2) and not 4-08(c)(1) as misdescribed on the parking ticket.
Respectfully,
Joe
Here are Joe’s exhibits
Here’s Joe’s appeal
Appeal
Addendum to Section C
Summons Number: 8570866604
The original judge made mistakes of law and fact when reaching his guilty verdict. The verdict should be reversed.
My original defense statement:
“I hereby certify as follows:
I am not guilty because:
The rule was misdescribed.
The rule that regulated the place of occurrence was 4-08(c)(2) Taxi and/or for-hire vehicle relief stand, and not 4-08(c)(1) Taxi stand.
The parking ticket described the place of occurrence as:
“Front of 3 W 31st St,” in Manhattan. I was charged with violating Rule 408(c)(1) No standing Taxi stand. But, my parking space, in front of the place of occurrence was regulated by Rule 4-08(c)(2).
I have submitted a series of exhibits in support of my defenses.
Due to these circumstances, please dismiss this parking ticket.
Thank you.
-I hereby certify that my testimony is the truth to the best of my knowledge. I fully understand that if my testimony is willfully false, I am subject to punishment
-I certify that the images contained in the exhibits are true and accurate reproductions of the originals as they existed on the date this parking ticket was issued
-I certify that my parking space was regulated by 4-08(c) (2) and not 4-08(c)(1) as misdescribed on the parking ticket.
Respectfully,
Joe”
The original judge found me guilty because:
“ The Respondent has been charged with violating Traffic Rule 4- 08 (c ) ( 1) by standing or parking a vehicle other than a taxi in a taxi stand when such stand has been officially designated and appropriately posted. Taxi is defined in Traffic Rule 4-01 as a motor vehicle used for the carriage of passengers for compensation equipped with a taxi meter, painted yellow or green, and displaying a current medallion or other license issued by the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission.
Respondent asserts that an incorrect provision of the law was cited on the summons. The cited provision was reviewed and Respondentʼs claim is rejected.
Guilty”
Argument
I offered my:
-Certified testimony
-Exhibits
The original judge exhibited prejudice against the respondent by his failure to engage in a thoughtful, fair-minded weighing of all the credible, evidence.
I raised only one defense at the original hearing and that was, the rule I was charged with violating was misdescribed.
The TEA mistakenly entered R. 4-08(c)(1) Taxi Stand, on the parking ticket. However, according to the DOT Parking Regulations Map (Beta), Google Street View, and my own personal knowledge of the rule displayed on the signs that regulated the place of occurrence, the correct rule was R. 4-08(c)(2), Taxi and For-Hire Relief Stand. These are two different rules with different purposes that were not interchangeable.
On the other hand, the original judge devoted the greater part of his decision quoting the definition of a taxi, as follows:
“Taxi is defined in Traffic Rule 4-01 as a motor vehicle used for the carriage of passengers for compensation equipped with a taxi meter, painted yellow or green, and displaying a current medallion or other license issued by the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission. “ But, this definition had nothing at all to do with my defense that the rule was misdescribed.
The final sentence of the judgeʼs opinion stated, “The cited provision was reviewed and Respondentʼs claim is rejected. “ Thatʼs it.
This is, without doubt, a net opinion that cannot legally support a finding of guilty, especially when it contradicts the official DOT Parking Regulations Map. The original judge failed to offer any support for his net opinion.
I have submitted a series of exhibits in support of my defenses.”
I presented substantial, certified evidence that cannot be characterized as patently incredible in support of my defenses. (See, Young v City of New York Dept. of Fin. Parking Violations Adjudications 2007 NY Slip Op 51460(U) [16 Misc 3d 1117(A)] Decided on June 13, 2007 Supreme
Court, New York County Goodman).
Please right, this wrong and dismiss the parking ticket.
Respectfully submitted,
Joe
Commentary
I have found after fighting many, many NYC parking tickets that the vast majority of the judges do the right thing. You gotta identify the right defense and present the proper proof and your ticket will be dismissed. However, I have also found that there are some rogue judges that haven’t a clue about right and wrong. They have no sense of justice.
It’s easy to spot these rogue judges. All you have to do is read their pathetic decisions. They can’t even fill in the blanks correctly on their “Decision Templates.” Their decisions are not supported by a reasonable interpretation of the facts or the correct statement of the law.
Shameful!
When you’re right, Fight, and that includes filing an appeal from a bad decision if necessary. Here are some things to keep in mind when preparing your appeal:
- Your burden of proof on appeal is to persuade an appeals panel that the original judge made a mistake of law or fact based on the evidence you submitted.
- We are not permitted to offer additional evidence on appeal
- Do not regurgitate the same argument you submitted to the original judge. You have to frame your argument by pointing out specific instances the original judge made factual blunders or misapplied the law or rule
- For example, in Joe’s appeal, the judge made mistakes of fact and law. The evidence clearly demonstrated that Joe’s parking space was regulated by a different rule than entered by the Warrior (mistake of fact)
- Therefore, the rule Joe was charged with was wrong (misdescribed)
- These mistakes of law and fact are the basis for winning arguments on appeal
Good luck.
Be safe.
Regards,
Larry
Add your first comment to this post