Edited sentence: 2019), that the TLC’s practice was unconstitutional and denied the suspended drivers Due Process of Law.3d 66 (2d Cir.As noted in the findings, Joshi testified, but her testimony was so false, that the district court judge called it not credible.Before that hearing there was a trial to determine the exact nature of the the TLC’s post-suspension hearing practice, which resulted in formal findings of fact by the district judge.Daus, 931 F.During her tenure, which was characterized by the ruination of the city’s yellow taxi industry, she presided over a anomalous program whereby taxi drivers licenses were suspended based on an arrest (not a conviction, just an arrest) for even misdemeanor charges.In 2019, after 13 years of litigation, the Second Court of Appeals ruled in a case called Nnebe v.In fact, the hearing process was a sham— no driver was ever reinstated.It would then offer the drivers a “hearing” to determine whether the suspension should be continued while the criminal charges were pending.Joshi, systemically rejecting any recommendation by an administrative law judge to reinstate a license.Many thousands of drivers were suspended without any real due process, losing their livelihoods for months without and real cause.Over time, advocates for driver came to understand the process as phony so few drivers even asked for a hearing.The TLC’s practice was to suspend drivers without regard to the facts and circumstances of the alleged crime (such as it being off-duty) and without considering the driver’s prior record.The findings state: "The Court does not credit Joshi’s testimony on this issue because it flatly contradicts official Chairperson decisions she herself authored.This futility was largely due to the various TLC chairs, including Ms