Court Opinion

ID: 9952455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 20:08:51.278003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:39:50.151968
License: Public Domain

Muladzhanov v City of New York
               2024 NY Slip Op 30832(U)
                     March 15, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157542/2020
                  Judge: Debra A. James
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 157542/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. DEBRA A. JAMES                                             PART   59
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          157542/2020
             ABRAM MULADZHANOV, BINYAMIN SCHWARTZ,
             GEORGE PRINGLE, JOHN SANTANA, individually, and on                                  MOTION DATE         06/09/2023
             behalf of all others similarly situated,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                         Petitioners,

                                                 -v-
             THE CITY OF NEW YORK, MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO, IN
             HIS OFFICIAL, INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL
             CAPACITIES, COMMISSIONER POLLY TROTTENBERG,
             IN HER OFFICIAL, INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL
             CAPACITIES, COMMISSIONER JACQUES JIHA, IN HIS
             OFFICIAL, INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL CAPACITIES,
             DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JEFFREY SHEAR, IN HIS
             OFFICIAL, INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL CAPACITIES,
             JOHN AND JANE DOE CITY OF NEW YORK
             EMPLOYEES, IN THEIR OFFICIAL, INDIVIDUAL AND
             PERSONAL CAPACITIES, JOHN AND JANE DOE NEW                                            DECISION + ORDER ON
             YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION                                                      MOTION
             EMPLOYEES, IN THEIR OFFICIAL, INDIVIDUAL AND
             PERSONAL CAPACITIES, JOHN AND JANE DOE NEW
             YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE EMPLOYEES, IN
             THEIR OFFICIAL, INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL
             CAPACITIES, JOHN AND JANE DOE NEW YORK CITY
             PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU EMPLOYEES, IN THEIR
             OFFICIAL, INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL CAPACITIES,
             JOHN AND JANE DOE NEW YORK CITY PARKING
             VIOLATIONS BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES,
             IN THEIR OFFICIAL, INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL
             CAPACITIES,

                                                         Respondents.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
            23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51,
            52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
            were read on this motion to/for                                            ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER)                .

                                                                           ORDER

                      Upon the foregoing documents, it is

             157542/2020 MULADZHANOV, ABRAM vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                                     Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                         INDEX NO. 157542/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2024

                  ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the cross motion of respondents to

            dismiss the proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) is granted: and

            it is further

                  ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition is denied, and the

            proceeding       is    dismissed,         with        costs   and   disbursements          to

            respondents; and it is further

                  ADJUDGED         that       respondents,            having    address(es)            at

            ____________________ , do recover from petitioners, having an

            address at ____________________ , costs and disbursements in the

            amount of $ __________ , as taxed by the Clerk, and that respondent

            have execution therefor.

                                                     DECISION

                  Petitioners do not contend that their speeding

            adjudications were not supported by substantial evidence

            proffered at the hearings but claim that the speeding camera

            signage was inadequate and camera operational tests insufficient

            to set a legal speed limit or to establish that such speed limit

            was exceeded, respectively, and that therefore the adjudications

            were arbitrary and capricious.                 As respondents move to dismiss,

            157542/2020 MULADZHANOV, ABRAM vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                          Page 2 of 5
            Motion No. 001

                                                        2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                              INDEX NO. 157542/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2024

            as a matter of law, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7)1, there is no

            substantial evidence issue raised pursuant to CPLR § 78032.

                      As    argued by respondents, none of petitioners’ claims

            state a viable cause of action against the individual

            defendants, personally, as same are challenges to official

            actions, which actions involve the exercise of discretion.               See

            Tango v Tulevech, 61 NY2d 34, 40 (1983).

                      Petitioners do not deny that each were afforded an opportunity

            to challenge the Notices of Violations at an evidentiary hearing

            conducted by respondent administrative agency.             Therefore, as a

            matter of law, their constitutional rights to due process were not

            violated.          See Miller v Schwartz, 128 AD2d 783 (2d Dept 1987).

                      Nor do the challenges of petitioners to the verbiage on the

            signs providing notice of speed cameras have any merit, as a

            matter of law.            As respondents contend, the National Manual on

            Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways

            1
              To the extent that respondents rely upon documentary record
            evidence, the court deems the true nature of their application
            as pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1).
            2
              This court does not consider respondents’ arguments with respect
            to the 2017 speed camera Notices of Liability issued pursuant to
            Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) § 1108-b (prohibiting speeding
            near schools) that petitioners Muladzhanov and Schwartz are
            barred because such petitioners pled guilty to the speeding
            charges set forth in such Notices, as such would be part of any
            review by the Appellate Division, First Department, upon
            transfer pursuant to CPLR § 7804. See Jones v Fletcher, 279 AD
            1118 (3d Dept 1952) and Serby v City of New York, 215 AD3d 438
            (1st Dept 2023).
                157542/2020 MULADZHANOV, ABRAM vs. CITY OF NEW YORK           Page 3 of 5
                Motion No. 001

                                                            3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                 INDEX NO. 157542/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2024

            provides that New York State may vary such requirements, subject

            to substantial compliance with such Manual.              In addition, New

            York State laws, specifically Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1680(c)

            and 1682, permit respondent City to diverge from the state

            specifications raised by petitioners to               the extent respondent

            City “in its discretion deems practicable”.              As respondent New

            York City did so, petitioners’ challenge thereon shall be

            dismissed.

                  Given the “coding error” explanation set forth in the

            letter dated June 11, 2018 that the signature of the technician

            on the Certificate of Charging Liability in some instances is

            not viewable from certain computer monitors, and the removal of

            the verification requirement by VTL § 208 removal, petitioners

            have no basis to assail the authenticity of the Technician’s

            Certificates.        See Street v City of New York, 202 AD3d 542, 543

            (1st Dept 2022).

                  Petitioners’ challenge to the Daily Set-up Log likewise

            likes merit as the record evidence, in the form of the Daily

            Logs themselves (NYSCEF Documents Number 9), demonstrates that

            respondent City’s implementation of such Set-up comports with

            VTL § 1180-b(3) mandates, as a matter of fact and law.               Further,

            respondent City’s discretion therewith is entitled to deference

            by this court.        See Serby v City of New York, supra, at p. 439,

            citing Street, supra.

            157542/2020 MULADZHANOV, ABRAM vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                  Page 4 of 5
            Motion No. 001

                                                        4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 157542/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2024

                   Finally, for the reasons asserted by respondents, this

            court finds that petitioners’ other challenges lack merit.

            Therefore dismissed are petitioners’ claims of or for (1)

            deprivation of due process (see Halberstam v City of New York,

            Index No. 654239/2012, [Order dated December 14, 2013, Kathryn

            Freed, JSC, NYSCEF Document Number 63]; Nestle Waters N Am Inc v

            City of New York, 689 Fed Appx 87, 88 [2d Cir 2017]; and

            Muladzhanov v           City of New York, 18 CV 930 [US Court, EDNY
            2018]); (2) civil damages for violations of VTL §§ 1180-b(a)(2),

            1180-b(d),         1180-b(g)(2) and 1180-b(a) (see Weinman v New York

            State Department of Motor Vehicles Traffic Violations Bureau,

            203 AD3d 1050 [2d Dept 2022]); and (3) fraudulent

            concealment/fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation,

            unjust enrichment (see Michael R. Gianatasio, PE, PC v City of

            New York, 53 Misc3d 757, 774-775 [Sup Ct NY Co 2016, Kornreich,

            J); declaratory judgment (see Press v Monroe County, 50 NY2d 695

            (1980).

                   3/15/2024
                     DATE                                                      DEBRA A. JAMES, J.S.C.
            CHECK ONE:               X   CASE DISPOSED                 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED          X   DENIED   GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

            APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                  SUBMIT ORDER

            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN    FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

            157542/2020 MULADZHANOV, ABRAM vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                  Page 5 of 5
            Motion No. 001

                                                          5 of 5
[* 5]