Last Updated on January 27, 2020 by Lawrence Berezin
A parking rule is a required element. A wonderful friend of ours was issued a parking ticket for no parking. The Warrior claimed that violating a sign such as the above 2-hour metered parking sign was considered a no parking violation, 4-08(d).
I disagreed and recommended we fight the no parking ticket.
Did we win?
No Parking Rule versus Time Limits Rule
Yes, we won!
The parking rule that regulated our hero’s space was a “Time Limits” rule (above right) and not a “No Parking rule (above left).”
Here’s the “Time Limits” rule:
(6) Time limits. Where signs are erected specifying time limits on standing or parking, no person shall stand or park any vehicle in excess of the time so prescribed.
You’ll find the time limits rule at RCNY: 4-09(m)(6)
A time limits rule sets the maximum number of hours a driver can park in an area regulated by a time limits sign. For example, if the maximum time limit is 2-hours then you can’t leave your car in the same space for more than 2-hours without moving it.
Our hero may have parked for more than the maximum time on the sign (2-hours) but the Warrior misdescribed a required element. He got the parking rule wrong and the ticket was dismissed.
You still gotta present the proper proof, properly to beat the ticket
Here is my Defense certification:
Dear Honorable Judge,
I hereby certify as follows:
I am not guilty of this parking violation because:
-The Rule was misdescribed
The place of occurrence, front of 260 Christopher Lane in Staten Island, was not regulated by a no-parking rule, R.4-08(d). Instead, It was regulated by a 2-Hour Parking Limits Rule, R.4-08(m)(6).
I have submitted a series of exhibits in support of my defense.
Due to these circumstances, please dismiss this parking ticket.
-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 my exhibits are true and accurate reproductions of the originals as they existed on the date this parking ticket was issued
Winning defenses are where you find them. But, the best place to look is the required elements entered on the front of the ticket. If you find an omitted, misdescribed, or illegible required element, you win, subject to presenting the proper proof, properly.
It may require a little time, energy, and research to find your get out of jail free defense. But, when you receive your “Not Guilty” verdict, it will be worth it.
For example, always make sure the place of occurrence was described correctly. If the place of occurrence entered on the parking ticket was not regulated by the parking rule you were charged with on the ticket, you win.
In this case, the Parking Ticket Warrior misinterpreted the rule displayed on the parking sign. He thought it was simply a no-parking rule violation. Ticket dismissed!
roger Ivan vargas says
Very well done, Larry. Congrats.
Lawrence Berezin says
Thank you, Roger.
That was very kind to take your valuable time to comment on the blog post.
Sam Licer says
I tried a similar tactic but have not had success. Parking tickets seem to always conflate the “dedicated use” law 4-08(a)(3)(i)with the “authorized vehicles” law 4-08 (c)(4).
The “dedicated use” law states that standing is prohibited in an area designated with a dedicated use sign (even if there is no “no standing” signage.)
The “authorized vehicles” law states that WHEN THERE IS A NO STANDING SIGN, no vehicles not otherwise authorized (double negative) can stand in the area.
The essential point is that when there is only a dedicated use sign, the authorized vehicle law is completely irrelevant. The very title of that subsection is “violation of posted no standing prohibited.”
Yet in my experience, every violation of a dedicated use area is marked 4-08(c)(3).
But I’ve lost without comment every time I tried to fight and appeal tickets using this rationale. Not that I blame them, it is kind of a stupid appeal but it does seem technically correct.
I once beat such a ticket with this simple letter. To whom it may concern; I received this ticket for parking more than 1 hour in this zone. Your honor, can the officer prove that I didn’t move my car within this hour?
The judge accepted this defense.
Lawrence Berezin says
Good for you, Tzvi!
With this type of ticket, the Warrior or Cop enters the time of first observation and the time the ticket was issued must be more than the maximum time to park.
That’s all they have to do. It is our burden to prove we moved the car and returned later.
Believe me, your victory makes up for all the time we don’t get the benefit of the doubt.
Absolutely ridiculous that Warrior word is more valuable than car owner. His word against yours does not make for evidence. Good to know though and maybe it’s best to submit a notarized affidavit of a witness saying that the car was moved and returned a short while later. Hope sthg like this works.
Lawrence Berezin says
It always helps to submit a witness statement to support your testimony.
I use a certification instead of an affidavit because it may be inconvenient to secure a notary, as follows:
I also ask for the certification in a witnesses’ own handwriting. It is more credible.