TAXI DRIVER RIGHTS LITIGATION


Padberg et al. v. McGrath-McKechnie, et al
Ind. No. 00 Civ. 3355(RJD)
In November of 1999, the Mayor of the City of New York and the Chairwoman of the Taxi and Limousine Commission announced a new rule: Any taxi driver accused of a service refusals would have his license suspended on he spot, his taxicab would be confiscated, and, that, following a hearing, his licenses would be revoked altogether.  
 
This policy--dubbed "Operation Refusal"--  violates a City statutes and the TLC's own rules. It was dictated by mayoral decree and without a vote by the Taxi and Limousine Commission, though the City Charter requires one. Thus, every hack license revoked or suspended under the decree was taken illegally.  The Padberg action seeks an end to the policy-- which remains in effect-- and a return of licenses unlawfully seized.
 
From the Cert Petition:
 
Danny Glover's protest quite properly struck a nerve, and certainly it unleashed a firestorm of publicity.  But neither the legitimacy of his complaint, nor the allegedly heartfelt desire to cure it justified the systemic trampling of the constitutional rights of taxi drivers, as occurred here. The TLC and its top official defied their city's charter, enabling statutes, their own regulations, independent judges, and their own commissioners.  In their zeal, they deprived hundreds of other taxi drivers of their livelihoods.  As this Court has said, "Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions." Owen, 445 U.S. at 656.  When officials ignore this injunction, Section 1983 is there to provide a remedy. 

From The New York Times (6/10/2000):
 
Plaintiffs' Documents:

Petition For Certiorari -- NEW & RECOMMENDED
Court of Appeals Brief -- RECOMMENDED
Reply Brief -- Recommended
 
Smith v. McGrath-McKechnie, et al
Ind. No. 01 Civ. 1786 (RJD)
There is a scene in the movie The Verdict where attorney Frank Galvin (played by Paul Newman) insists to Charlotte Rampling that the idea of a law court is not to dispense justice. The court, Galvin says, exists to give people "a chance at justice." In this ideal, the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission has a problem, because most cabbies believe that in the TLC's courts, they have no chance. 
 
The Smith case illustrates the basis for this belief.
Plaintiff's Documents:
 
Ackman v. Giuliani -- TLC Access Case
New York State Supreme Court, dated March 2, 2000

"It has been repeatedly recognized that New York State possesses a 'strong public policy ... of public access to judicial and administrative proceedings.... Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner be permitted access to TLC hearings, provided that he does not engage in conduct which would disrupt the proceedings in any way.'"  
Read the COMPLETE DECISION BY JUSTICE PARNESS

 
Contact: Dan Ackman 
212-496-2263