Court Opinion

ID: 9916461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:07:07.732457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:40.145383
License: Public Domain

Welde v New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection
               2024 NY Slip Op 30024(U)
                     January 5, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 154338/2023
                  Judge: Sabrina Kraus
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. 154338/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36                                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. SABRINA KRAUS                                                  PART                          57TR
                                                                                       Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X      INDEX NO.          154338/2023
             ERNEST LOGAN WELDE,
                                                                                                                         10/24/2023,
                                                         Plaintiff,                                  MOTION DATE         10/31/2023

                                                 - V -
                                                                                                     MOTION SEQ. NO. _ _0_0_1_0_0_2__

             NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
             PROTECTION,                                                                               DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                             MOTION
                                                         Defendant.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
            11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
            were read on this motion to/for                                             ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER)

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
            31, 32, 33, 34
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       JUDGMENT - DEFAULT

                                                         BACKGROUND

                      Section 24-163(a) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York ("Administrative

            Code") prohibits the idling of vehicles, with limited exceptions, for more than three minutes.

            Under Administrative Code§ 24-182(a), any natural person ("Citizen Reporter") may serve a

            complaint on DEP alleging that a person has violated Administrative Code § 24-163 by allowing

            a bus or truck to idle for more than three minutes. Such a complaint must be served upon DEP

            "together with evidence of such violation." Administrative Code § 24-182( a).

                      Petitioner has submitted approximately 9,799 citizen idling complains to DEP - 3,642 of

            those complaints were submitted in 2023 alone. In the instant proceeding, Petitioner is

            challenging the denial of nearly 400 idling complaints submitted to DEP since the end of 2022.

             154338/2023 WELDE, ERNEST LOGAN vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF                                             Page 1 of 7
             ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                                            1 of 7
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 154338/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

                    Respondent cross-moves for dismissal pursuant to CPLR §§ 321 l(a)(5), (a)(2), (a)(7), on

            the grounds that Petitioner's claims are time-barred, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,

            and the petition fails to state a cause of action.

                    For the reasons set forth below, the petition is denied, Petitioner's motion for a default

           judgment is denied and the cross-motion to dismiss is granted.

                                                    DISCUSSION

                            254 of Petitioner's Challenged Complaints are Time-Barred

                    A proceeding brought pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR "must be commenced within

            four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner

            or the person whom he represents in law or in fact .... " CPLR § 217(1).

                    Any challenges to the final determinations issued by DEP prior to January 12, 2023, are

            time-barred by the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. Of the nearly 400

            complaints challenged in the instant proceeding, 254 of them had final determinations issued

            before January 12, 2023, and are time-barred.

                    The time barred complaints and the final determinations for same are listed in NYSCEF

            Doc #s 16, 17, 18, and 189. The petition is dismissed as to said claims.

                                            Complaints Reconsidered by DEP

                    DEP has reconsidered the complaint numbers 2023-56577; 2023- 33133; 2023-50412;

            and 2023-48840 and has either issued the violation or will allow Petitioner to pursue the

            violation. The primary relief sought against Respondent for these complaints was for DEP to

            reverse its determination to deny those complaints. Here, DEP has reconsidered these four

            complaints and reversed its decision.

             154338/2023 WELDE, ERNEST LOGAN vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF                       Page 2 of 7
             ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                            2 of 7
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 154338/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

                    As Petitioner was granted this portion of the relief requested for, Petitioner's claim is not

           justiciable and is moot, and the Petition is dismissed as to said claims.

                                           Remaining Challenged Denials

                    Of the remaining 100 complaints Petitioner seeks to challenge, DEP' s denials were based

            on one of two grounds; 1) the vehicle did not have commercial plates and, thus, did not qualify

            as a commercial vehicle eligible for a violation under RCNY, or 2) the complaint was duplicative

            of another complaint submitted the same day for the same vehicle at the same location.

                    To the extent that the Petition appears to seek relief in the form of mandamus to compel

            DEP to pursue, or allow Petitioner to pursue, specific complaints, Petitioner is not entitled to

            such relief. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy used to compel performance by an

            administrative body or officer of a duty positively required by law. See Hamptons Hosp. & Med.

            Ctr., Inc. v. Moore, 52 N.Y.2d 88 (1981); Gimprich v. Bd. ofEduc., 306 N.Y. 401 (1954).

            However, the mandamus remedy is available only where there is a clear and absolute right to the

            relief sought, and the body or officer whose duty it is to enforce such right has refused to

            perform such duty. See Brusco v. Braun, 84 N.Y.2d 674, 678 (1994); County of Fulton v. State of

            New York, 76 N.Y.2d 675, 678 (1990); Lisa v. Bd. ofEduc., 83 A.D.2d 949 (2d Dept. 1981).

                    Petitioner is not entitled to an order that DEP allow him to self-prosecute the complaints.

            DEP notified Petitioner that the complaints were denied because another citizen already

            submitted a complaint, and that only one violation would be issued per occurrence per day and

            location for all vehicles.

                    Under Administrative Code§ 24-178(a)(3)(ii), a penalty can be imposed once per day per

            violation of Administrative Code§ 24-163(a). DEP has interpreted, and OATH has held, that,

            when read in conjunction, Administrative Code§§ 24-163(a) and 24-178(a)(3)(ii) only allow

             154338/2023 WELDE, ERNEST LOGAN vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF                        Page 3 of 7
             ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                           3 of 7
[* 3]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 154338/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

            OATH to impose one penalty per day for each idling violation that involves a single vehicle

            idling on the same block. Therefore, DEP will only accept one complaint per day for each

            violation of Administrative Code§ 24-163(a) involving the same vehicle idling on the same

            block on the same day. DEP' s policy in this regard is rational as accepting multiple complaints

            for idling violations that would be dismissed as "duplicate" would waste administrative

            resources.

                       Additionally, it was rational for DEP not to allow issuance of said complaints for vehicles

            which did not have commercial plates. The Court gives deference to DEP' s interpretation of the

            definition of "truck", "on duty" emergency vehicle, and Administrative Code§§ 24-163(a) and

            24-178(a)(3)(ii), because the agency's interpretations are reasonable and rational and based on

            special competence DEP has developed in its administration of these sections of the

            Administrative Code.

                       The DEP Commissioner has the authority to make policy determinations in the

            administration of the agency's duties. Title 24 of the Administrative Code§ 24-105(a) states in

            relevant part, "The commissioner may adopt such rules, regulations and procedures as may be

            necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including rules, regulations and procedures

            [] ... "

                       Enforcement of the idling restrictions is done in conjunction with other City agencies.

            Administrative Code§ 24-163(b) and (e) task the New York City Department of Transportation

            ("DOT"), the New York City Police Department, the New York City Department of Sanitation,

            and the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation with enforcement responsibilities

            regarding the idling restrictions.

             154338/2023 WELDE, ERNEST LOGAN vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF                        Page 4 of 7
             ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                             4 of 7
[* 4]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 154338/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

                   Pursuant to the Vehicle and Traffic Law, City agencies can further define and regulate

            vehicles within the City. DOT promulgated rules in Title 24 of the Rules of the City of New

            York § 4-0, 1 defining particular words and phrases related to idling and commercial activities.

                   The New York City Department of Transportation's regulations are codified in the Rules

            of the City of New York. Title 34 RCNY § 4-0l(a) states,"[] Whenever any words and phrases

            used in these rules are not defined herein but are defined in Article 1 of the New York State

            Vehicle and Traffic Law, any such definition shall be deemed to apply to such words and phrases

            used herein."

                   DEP's use ofDOT's definition of "truck" as a vehicle with commercial plates as a basis

            for issuing idling violations pursuant to Administrative Code§ 163(a) was rational. DEP has a

            rational basis to use the definitions of sister-agency DOT for "truck" in lieu of the state law

            because it is the less ambiguous definition of "truck" and is permissible by law. See, VIL§

            1642. Furthermore, consistency of language for the purposes of enforcement between City

            agencies is an essential element in working to ensure predictable application of the City's rules

            and regulations for administrative determinations.

                   DEP' s rejection of a complaint regarding an emergency medical services ("EMS")

            vehicle was also reasonable and rational. EMS ambulances therefore are essentially the "offices"

            of the EMTs and paramedics who must listen to their radios in their trucks for dispatch

            information. Moreover, the trucks contain a plethora of medications that must be kept at constant

            temperatures and the ambulances are specifically equipped to store them accordingly. In other

            words, EMS vehicles that are idling while on duty, awaiting a call, are, in fact, maintaining their

            readiness to respond to a call. Thus, DEP's decision to use the DOT definition of "truck", and

             154338/2023 WELDE, ERNEST LOGAN vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF                       Page 5 of 7
             ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                          5 of 7
[* 5]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 154338/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

            therefore only issuing violations for vehicles with commercial plates, as well as reject a

            complaint for an EMS vehicle, was a rational application of statutory interpretation.

                    In deciding whether an agency's determination was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of

            discretion, courts do not review the facts de novo to arrive at an independent determination.

            Marsh v. Hanley, 50 A.D.2d 687, 687 (3d Dept. 1975); see also Heintz, 80 N.Y.2d at 1001. The

            reviewing court "may not substitute its own judgment of the evidence for that of the

            administrative agency but should review the whole record to determine whether there exists a

            rational basis to support the findings upon which the agency's determination is predicated."

            Purdy v. Kriesberg, 47 N.Y.2d 354, 358 (1979). A rational or reasonable basis for an

            administrative agency determination exists if there is evidence in the record to support its

            conclusion. See Sewell v. New York, 182 A.D.2d 469, 473 (1st Dept. 1992). As such, "[i]f the

            determination is rational, it must be upheld, even though the court, if viewing the case in the first

            instance, might have reached a different conclusion." Sullivan County Harness Racing, 30

            N.Y.2d at 278. Unless the reviewing court finds that the agency acted in excess of its

           jurisdiction, in violation of a lawful procedure, arbitrarily, or in abuse of its discretion, the court

            has no alternative but to confirm the agency's decision. See Pell, 34 N.Y.2d at 231.

                    Finally, Petitioner's motion for a default judgment is denied for the reasons stated above

            and because Respondent submitted responsive papers to Petitioner's Verified Amended Petition

            on October 20, 2023 when it filed its cross-motion to dismiss the Verified Amended Petition.

            Petitioner has no basis for his motion for a default judgment.

                    WHEREFORE it is hereby:

                    ADJUDGED that the motion to dismiss the petition is granted and the petition is dismissed;

            and it is further

             154338/2023 WELDE, ERNEST LOGAN vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF                         Page 6 of 7
             ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                           6 of 7
[* 6]
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 154338/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

                    ORDERED that the motion for a default judgment is denied; and it is further

                    ORDERED that any relief not expressly addressed has nonetheless been considered and

            is hereby denied; and it is further

                    ORDERED that, within 20 days from entry of this order, Respondent shall serve a copy of

            this order with notice of entry on the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office (60 Centre Street, Room

            119); and it is further

                    ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk shall be made in accordance with the

            procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for

           Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the court's website at the address

            www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh);]; and it is further

                    This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

                     1/5/2024
                      DATE                                                           SABRINA KRAUS, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                      NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                          GRANTED         □ DENIED           GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                       SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN         FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE

             154338/2023 WELDE, ERNEST LOGAN vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF                           Page 7 of 7
             ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                            7 of 7
[* 7]