morning your honour's my name is david schwartz please the quote i represent nestle waters north america inc and the supreme court has stated many times due process requires a fair trial in a fair tribunals and it's very clear in this case that nestle waters was denied due process both procedural due process and substantive to process this case is about forty one thousand eight hundred parking tickets totaling over four million dollars did you have to pay those tickets before you could challenge they question is you see you cite the car seizure case where his car was seized and you say there was we are for no excess ante review because what car was seized but impractical to challenge forty one thousand eight hundred the system practical for anybody who gets a parking ticket and doesn't challenge it but if in this particular case they didn't have to go through the article seventy process because there was such a systematic violation of their due process rights in this case actually it was a systematic value lake mead use that and x post is not necessarily challenge it right but but as the crimp star case points out and the litany especially the where the where the process is such a sham and this was a sham process process a sham one when you took it you won well well not because because then it's clear according to these cases that the deprivation process was a sham clearly when they got to the first department it wasn't a sham anymore but the fact of the matter is when the administrative process is such a sham where they are systematically misapplying that the fact that a court ministry of agency and then  does not make a process or sham if that were so three quarters of work and hope every time we get reversed by the supreme court it would mean that we were stranded and i hate to feel judged calbert see this clearly wasn't a mistake this was not a mis application of the law like the city argues this is clearly a complete disregard of the law the law section vehicle in traffic law or church two thirty eight sup two clearly states the argument that was being made was not by viet ministry toure's was not frivolous but you very well on a movie appellate division i'm not sure you know that's a matter of new york law i'm not sure if under new york have to describe the license plate as shown and there is such a systematic violation from the ticket agent onto the administrative process is such a sham and clearly the first department was was right in that case to reverse the supreme court but what we're saying here is and i think it's a very dangerous precedent that where where the city argues where this particular matter wasn't decided by a court before that therefore just because it wasn't it by a court doesn't mean that it was a sham process because when you look at that the decisions here clearly the statute speaks for itself do we have to have a case analyzing every statute if i am if i illegally possessing a gun and i have it in my sock and i argue well the statute doesn't say that the gun is illegal in my sock because the court hasn't decided that before it's very dangerous precedent that the city clearly and the agents and the and the and the arbitrators clearly disregarded the law they didn't misapply the law the law is as clear as day that where there isn't a portions license plate you can't describe it as i r p what they what the city did was they took the easy way out because on their on their computer system they couldn't plugin apportioned it stated i r p they would have to physically put a push in than each one they systematically disregarded that process and then it went down the line where the judges were told the administrative judges were told that it's the same thing but according to v t l section two thirty eight it's not the same thing you can't say that the mistake that was more than the mistake of made the disregarding of the law itself you certainly have the right and the novo review of this case to look at vehicle and traffic law or two thirty eight to where it clearly states where th five mandatory elements they're not elements that can be applied or should be applied they have to be applied and so clearly where one of the elements says the license plate must be described as shown it is clear is day you don't need a case to tell you the city didn't need a case to tell you the ticket agents the arbitrators didn't need a case it was very clear that they were misapplying and the supreme court ruled against you if was i mean even if you had won in the supreme court it's very hard for me to believe that every time the administrators take a position which it turns out to be wrong in court that gives you a loser and clearly the supreme court was wrong and the first department stated that the supreme court was wrong that's not where our due process violation comes in clearly under the the crimps stock line of cases it doesn't matter that the that that nestle was afforded due process at the supreme court level where there was such a just such a systematic violation of their due process law rights at the administrative level where each ticket would have been another ticket another ticket in fact they would have had to bring forty one thousand eight hundred civil cases a complete impractical impracticality that's you've done ok thank you you was able to get these tickets an old but it never employed the same procedures to the forty one thousand tickets at issue here from two thousand and ten to two thousand and fourteen it certainly had the opportunity it was available these procedures this is a sham procedure but he keeps using these catch phrases about deliberate sham there is really no well pled allegation here that there is some sort of a plausible suggestion of a deliberate  and the city can charge interest can it do something else well the challenge is going ken it sees a car can it do other things so it can happen in the situation where there are many parking tickets that haven't been paid and they come across the car they can move or after of a time when a challenge could have been made if there are a whole lot of them then they can put boots owners sees things or so on that if i get a parking ticket or if the first time it happened then these people having an r p instead of an a p or where they haven't said over this is wrong and don't pay it and go to challenge it the city do anything except charge interest if they lose you know and that's right and and in this case in ninety percent of the tickets that they received they did a pretty depreciation challenge and that  because there was such a systematic violation here and clearly it wasn't a misinterpretation or misapplication of the law the law is clear that it has to be described as shown you can't say that i in the city chose to disregard the law the administrators chose to disregard the law it was a systematic violation of their due process rights and yes they could have taken the one take it and gone up that way but they could also go to federal court where you have and this is the exact situation why they are afforded to go to federal court when you have forty one thousand eight hundred tickets and violations which keep going and and by the way if they did challenge the first one they had its own set of circumstances so whether was double parking or bus stops there were there were other arguments however the central argument to all of them are that the city systematically broke the law the system the city summary judgment based on those facts and to remain in this case for an inquest and if you don't grant summary judgment there there may be some factual issues which have to be taken care of in the federal court to at least reverse this decision which is by the way is counter intuitive because on the one on the one hand judge quarter of knowledged that there was a systematic violation and which they in fact judge carter ruled that that you could bring the case in federal court under these circumstances but the arguments are so circular and so interrelated that in the same analysis it was determined that well you have you had