Taxi and Limousine Comm’n v. Bilic OATH Index No. 226/11 (Aug. 23, 2010)

Taxi driver alleged to have overcharged passengers. In a default proceeding, ALJ found taximeter data sufficient to establish 78 instances of overcharges and recommended revocation of driver’s hack license and an $850 fine. ______________________________________________________

NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS

In the Matter of TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION

Petitioner - against -

GORAN BILIC Respondent

______________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JOHN B. SPOONER, Administrative Law Judge

This license revocation proceeding was referred by the Taxi and Limousine Commission

(“TLC”), pursuant to the New York City Administrative Code and Title 35 of the Rules of the

City of New York (“RCNY”). Respondent Goran Bilic, a taxi driver, is charged with

overcharging passengers on 78 occasions, in violation of 35 RCNY section 2-34(a) (Lexis 2010)

(Pet. Ex. 1).

After respondent failed to appear for the hearing scheduled for August 20, 2010,

petitioner submitted proof of service sufficient to establish that it mailed the petition and notice

of hearing to respondent at the address he provided to TLC (Pet. Exs. 1, 2). The petition placed

respondent on notice that the proceeding might result in suspension, fines, and revocation of his

TLC license. Based upon this evidence, respondent was found in default and the hearing went

forward in the form of an inquest.

At the hearing petitioner relied upon documentary evidence. As discussed below, I find

that petitioner’s proof was sufficient to sustain the charges. I recommend that respondent’s hack

license be revoked and that he be fined $850.

-2-

ANALYSIS

This case relies heavily upon newly implemented technology to establish that respondent

has repeatedly overcharged passengers over the course of 17 months. Since 2007 the

Commission has required that all taxicabs be equipped with a “taxicab technology system.” 35

RCNY § 1-11 (Lexis 2009). The taxicab technology system, also known as TPEP, provides for

electronic trip sheets which employ a global positioning system (“GPS”), a driver monitor for

text messaging, credit card capability, and a backseat passenger information monitor. See 35

RCNY § 3-03(e)(6) (Lexis 2009).

Under TPEP, each taxi is equipped with a meter which displays the fare, any surcharges,

and the rate number for the trip (Pet. Ex. 4). The authorized fare rates range from 1 to 5 as

follows: (1) trips within New York City; (2) trips to and from JFK airport and Manhattan; (3)

trips to Newark airport; (4) trips to Nassau and Westchester counties; and (5) negotiated fares.

Rate 4 is double rate 1. When driving to Nassau or Westchester County, drivers start with rate 1

in the City and change to rate 4 when they cross the county line (Pet. Ex. 3). The rationale for

enhanced fares outside the City limits is that drivers should be reimbursed for their return trip

because they are not permitted to pick up a fare outside the City.

As demonstrated by equipment manuals (Pet. Ex. 4), the driver manually sets the rate by

pushing a button on the meter to start the trip. At any time during the trip the driver can push a

button to change the rate. There are three brands of taxi meters authorized for installation in City

taxicabs: TaxiTronic, Centrodyne, and Pulsar. Each brand employs a slightly different method

of engaging and changing rates, which drivers are obliged to learn.

In an affidavit (Pet. Ex. 3), systems analyst Serge Royter stated that TLC recently

completed an investigation into whether taxi drivers were improperly using rate 4 when driving

passengers within New York City. From the various TPEP vendors, TLC obtained data on taxi

trips including the driver’s license number; the date, time, and pick-up and drop-off locations for

each trip; the fare charged; and the rate used. In analyzing the data, TLC found that over 500

drivers had activated rate 4 more than 50 times during the period for trips inside New York City

and commenced license revocation proceedings against these drivers, on the theory that, based

upon the trip data, these activations represented intentional overcharges (Pet. Ex. 6).

-3-

Mr. Royter further stated that based on the supplied vendor data he created and ran a Rate

4 Database Report (Pet. Ex. 5b). This report shows that, between December 8, 2008, and

February 27, 2010, respondent improperly activated the rate 4 fare 78 times within New York

City. In reaching this count, Mr. Royter filtered out all rate 4 trips ending in Nassau or

Westchester counties, and duplicate trips. In addition, TLC used two methods to eliminate rate 4

trips that may have been activation errors in that, even though the rate 4 code was activated, the

passenger was not overcharged. Specifically, TLC did not count trips where the rate 4 activation

occurred during the last 20 percent of the ride or (for instances where the rate 4 activation time

was not recorded) where the fare, with the rate 4 activated, did not exceed a maximum fare

calculation for the ride, based upon distance and time traveled.

Rule 2-34(a) states, “A driver shall not charge or attempt to charge a fare above the

approved rates, as provided by these rules.” Here, the unrebutted, credible evidence

demonstrates that respondent overcharged passengers by improperly using a rate 4 fare, as

alleged by petitioner. There is no evidence that respondent’s meter was malfunctioning or that

he did not understand how his meter worked. The frequency of respondent’s improper rate 4

activations was high throughout the period, a fact consistent with deliberate overcharging of

passengers.

Petitioner offered respondent’s trip sheets for January 16 and February 6, 2010 (Pet. Ex.

4), which confirmed that on those dates respondent used rate 4 for more than 5 trips as indicated

in the Rate 4 Database Report. Comparison of this tripsheet data with petitioner’s Rate 4

Database Report corroborates the reliability of the report.

For all of these reasons, I find that, between December 8, 2008, and February 27, 2010,

respondent overcharged passengers 78 times in violation of 35 RCNY section 2-34(a).

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

1. Respondent was properly served with the petition and notice of hearing.

2. Between December 8, 2008, and February 27, 2010,

respondent overcharged passengers 78 times in violation of 35 RCNY section 2-34(a).

-4-

RECOMMENDATION

As a penalty here, petitioner seeks revocation of respondent’s hack license and the

maximum fine. This request is reasonable.

Rule 2-87 sets forth the penalty for violations of rule 2-34 and also provides, “Nothing

contained herein shall limit or restrict any other authority the Commission may have to suspend

or revoke a driver’s license.” 35 RCNY § 2-87(a)(1) (Lexis 2009). Rule 8-03(b)(ii) states that,

“the Commission may, in its discretion, impose a penalty of license revocation . . . and/or a fine”

not to exceed $1,000 for each violation against a licensed driver. 35 RCNY § 8-03(b)(ii) (Lexis

2009); see also NYC Admin. Code § 19-505(l).

Respondent’s manipulation of his meter to overcharge 78 passengers within a 15-month

period was egregiously dishonest. The riding public should be able to trust that taxi drivers will

transport them safely and charge the legally permitted fares. Here, where petitioner

demonstrated with uncontroverted evidence that respondent has a pattern of intentionally

deceiving passengers by using an unauthorized rate on his meter, revocation of his hack license

is appropriate. Taxi and Limousine Comm’n v. Cheema, OATH Index No. 1450/10 (Jan. 21,

2010) (hack license revoked where driver improperly used rate 4 and overcharged passengers

574 times within a one-month period.

I further find that petitioner’s request for a $850 fine, the same fine authorized for a first

and second overcharge violation under section 2-87. See Taxi and Limousine Comm’n v.

Pedalino, OATH Index No. 2820/10 (July 14, 2010) (license revocation and $850 fine

recommended where driver overcharged passengers on 1,966 occasions); Taxi and Limousine

Comm’n v. Sheikh, OATH Index No. 2813/10 (July 14, 2010) (license revocation and $850 fine

recommended where driver overcharged passengers on 231 occasions), is not excessive under

rule 8-03(b)(ii), which permits fines of up to $1,000 per violation.

Accordingly, I recommend that respondent’s hack license be revoked and that he be fined

$850.

John B. Spooner Administrative Law Judge August 23, 2010

-5- SUBMITTED TO: DAVID YASSKY Commissioner/Chair APPEARANCES: MARC T. HARDEKOPF, ESQ. Attorney for Petitioner No Appearance by Respondent