Taxi & Limousine Comm'n v. Shvadron
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Shvadron
OATH Index No. 2131/21 (June 9, 2021), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (June 22, 2021), appended
Following his arrest for assault in the third degree, petitioner
suspended respondent’s TLC driver’s license. At a post-
suspension hearing, petitioner proved that if the charges underlying
his arrest are true, respondent poses a direct and substantial threat
to the public health and safety. Continued suspension of
respondent’s TLC driver’s license recommended.
______________________________________________________
NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS
In the Matter of
TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION
Petitioner
- against -
JERRY SHVADRON
Respondent
______________________________________________________
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
INGRID M. ADDISON, Administrative Law Judge
The Taxi and Limousine Commission (“TLC” or “petitioner”) commenced this summary
suspension proceeding against respondent, Jerry Shvadron, a licensed TLC driver, pursuant to
the New York City Administrative Code and the Commission’s rules, title 35 of the Rules of the
City of New York (“RCNY”). See Admin. Code § 19-512.1(a) (Lexis 2021); 35 RCNY § 68-
15(d) (Lexis 2021). Petitioner suspended respondent’s TLC-issued licenses after it received
notice that he was arrested on April 15, 2021, and charged with assault in the third degree, in
violation of section 120.00 of the Penal Law, and arraigned on additional charges of attempted
assault, menacing in the third degree, criminal trespass in the second, third and fourth degrees,
and harassment in the second degree, in violation of sections 110 to 120.00, 120.15, 140.05,
140.10, 140.15 and 240.26 of the Penal Law. Petitioner seeks to continue the suspension of
respondent’s licenses until a final disposition in his criminal case, on grounds that respondent
poses a direct and substantial threat to the public health and safety (ALJ Ex. 1).
A post-suspension video trial was conducted on June 2, 2021. The trial was held
remotely via Webex due to ongoing concerns about the Covid-19 pandemic. At the trial,-2-
petitioner relied on documentary evidence. Respondent appeared pro se. In accordance with
rule 103(A)(8) of Appendix A to title 48 of the Rules of the City of New York, the Rules of
Conduct for Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers of the City of New York, I advised
respondent of his right to be represented by counsel. Respondent declined, and the trial went
forward. Respondent testified, offered documentary evidence, and called his mother-in-law,
Olga Vagman, to testify.
For the following reasons, I find that if the charges underlying respondent’s arrest are
true, respondent poses a “direct and substantial threat” to the public health and safety. I therefore
recommend that the suspension of respondent’s TLC-issued licenses continue during the
pendency of his criminal charges.
ANALYSIS
The Commission may suspend a TLC driver’s license prior to a hearing “for good cause
shown relating to a direct and substantial threat to the public health or safety.” Admin. Code §
19-512.1(a). The Commission’s rules authorize the Chairperson to suspend a driver’s license
upon notification of the driver’s arrest for any one of an enumerated list of charges, if the
Chairperson believes that continued licensure of the driver would pose a direct and substantial
threat to public health or safety. 35 RCNY § 68-15(d)(1). A driver whose license is summarily
suspended is entitled to a Summary Suspension trial before this tribunal, at which the issue to be
determined is whether “the charges pending against the [driver], if true, demonstrate that the
continuation of the [driver’s] License while awaiting a decision on the criminal charges would
pose a direct and substantial threat to the public health or safety. 35 RCNY §§ 68-15(d)(3), (5).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that due process
requires that these post-suspension hearings be meaningful, in that, it must afford the driver an
opportunity to show that “his or her particular licensure does not cause a threat to public safety”
Nnebe v. Daus, 931 F.3d 66, 83 (2d Cir. 2019). In assessing whether the arrestee driver poses a
“direct” and “substantial” threat to the health or safety of the public, relevant considerations must
include “ . . the conduct underlying the arrest and the overall record and character of the driver . .
. .” Id. at 82. Among factors to be considered are whether the charged crime is the “sole
infraction in an otherwise spotless record” and whether the underlying conduct, even if it
satisfies the elements of a crime, ‘was technical or mitigated, such that continuation of the-3-
driver’s license did not pose the kind of threat conjured by the general nature of the crime
charged.” Id.
As evidenced by the following, this tribunal undertakes a case-by-case analysis of the
circumstances surrounding a licensee’s arrest, the seriousness of the criminal charge against the
licensee, and its nexus to the duties of the licensee, his/her character, driver’s record and the
likelihood of recurrence. See Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Francois, OATH Index No. 651/20
(Nov. 25, 2019), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Dec. 24, 2019) (suspension lifted where licensee was
arrested for leaving the scene of an accident but the judge found that the potential threat from
continued licensure was not substantial); Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Singh, OATH Index No.
701/20 (Nov. 1, 2019), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Nov. 19, 2019) (suspension lifted for licensee
charged with assault, who had a spotless record of law-abiding behavior and showed substantial
regard for passenger safety, but reacted to extraordinary provocation); Taxi & Limousine
Comm’n v. Azad, OATH Index No. 142/20 (Aug. 15, 2019), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Oct. 15,
2019) (suspension continued where driver’s arrest for second degree assault was amended to
third degree assault and endangering the welfare of a child, and the criminal complaint indicated
that licensee repeatedly struck his teenage nephew with a stick, inflicting significant injuries);
Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Baig, OATH Index No. 179/20 (Aug. 15, 2019), adopted, Comm’r
Dec. (Oct. 15, 2019) (suspension continued where driver was arrested for third degree assault
and forcible touching, and re-arrested less than two months later for violating an order of
protection, and where the criminal complaint detailed the allegations made by the complainant).
Respondent holds two TLC licenses – a hack license, which was issued in 2017, and a car
license, which was issued in 2013 (Pet. Ex. 2). On or around April 16, 2021, petitioner was
notified that on April 15, 2021, respondent was arrested and charged with assault in the third
degree, in violation of section 120.00 of the Penal Law (Pet. Ex. 3). The arrest notification form
also showed that the arrest took place at an address on West 5th Street in Brooklyn, New York
(Pet. Exs. 3, 4), on the day of the incident. The arrest charge is a Class A misdemeanor and is
one of the enumerated charges upon which the Chairperson may summarily suspend a licensee.
The additional charges preferred upon respondent at arraignment are not. 35 RCNY § 68-
15(d)(1)(ii)(A).
Petitioner presented the NYPD online arrest report and an online WebCrims printout
from the New York State Unified Court System (Pet. Exs. 4, 5). According to the arrest report,-4-
the complaining victim was a security guard at the building where the arrest took place.
Respondent came to the building and attempted to go upstairs to visit a family member. The
guard told respondent that he could not go upstairs unless the guard gave respondent permission
to do so. At that, respondent shoved the guard and struck him with a closed fist on the left side
of his face and on his left hand, causing pain (Pet. Ex. 4).
The WebCrims Report showed that a Desk Appearance Ticket was issued and listed the
additional charges preferred against respondent (Pet. Ex. 5).
Respondent did not deny that he had an altercation with the complaining victim, the
security guard, but he claimed that being arrested was a misunderstanding. Respondent testified
that on the day of the incident, he was not attempting to get to Ms. Vagman’s apartment. He was
actually waiting for her to come downstairs so he could take her to an appointment. He did not
have his cell phone when he arrived at her building and therefore, could not call her. He entered
the building through its rear entrance as a tenant was exiting. He bypassed the elevators and
headed to the security guard, who was new. Respondent asked the guard if he could use to
intercom to call Ms. Vagman but was told that the intercom did not work. Respondent then
asked to go upstairs. The guard “threatened” him by cautioning that respondent would be in
trouble if he went upstairs without signing the logbook, which respondent did. He testified that
he headed to the elevator but the guard told him that he, respondent, was not going anywhere.
Respondent claimed that he was scared, believing that the guard was going to arrest him for
trespassing. Nevertheless, respondent defied the guard and entered the elevator. He opined that
the guard was supposed to help the residents of the building, but he was not doing so.
Respondent rationalized that he was worried about Ms. Vagman because she is prone to fainting
spells. He was also concerned that she may have unsuccessfully attempted to contact him
because he did not have his phone. Respondent stated that the guard placed his hand in the
elevator’s doorway, preventing it from ascending (Tr. 17-20, 32-33).
Respondent first testified that he wanted to push the guard away from the elevator so he
could go upstairs but a brawl ensued. He tried to punch the guard but his punches did not land in
the guard’s facial area because the latter was much taller. The guard grabbed respondent’s
jacket, then his arms, started choking him and then ripped off his gold necklace. He submitted a
photograph of a necklace with a broken clasp (Tr. 20; Resp. Ex. A). Respondent insisted that he
was the victim. He opined that the guard was treating him as a trespasser and insinuated that this-5-
was because he was wearing his mask. Also, there were about ten tenant witnesses who
probably thought that he was a trespasser. They stood watching as the guard was choking him
and he was about to pass out. One tenant told the guard to release respondent. The building
manager turned up and spoke with the guard on the side. Respondent speculated that the
manager was giving the guard instructions as to how to couch his version of events. It is unclear
when and by whom the Police Department was called, but respondent maintained that he was
arrested because “they said” that he threw the first punch and possibly because the building
feared that he would sue them. He admitted that he may have thrown the first punch in a panic,
but he was not trying to hurt the guard (Tr. 20-21, 34-35). Eventually, Ms. Vagman came
downstairs and started yelling. Respondent does not know if she witnessed any of the kerfuffle
between him and the guard, but she almost fainted and the manager caught and prevented her
from falling. Respondent’s wife, who works nearby, also came running after she had been called
by Ms. Vagman (Tr. 35-36).
Respondent produced a 2020 W-2 form to show that he has worked for BLS Limo
Service. He touted that he has transported celebrities, including Antonio Banderas, VIP Disney
Executives and basketball players (Tr. 27; Resp. Ex. D). He also worked for Lyft and Uber, but
due to Covid-19, he became a stay-at-home dad, while his wife worked at a nearby hospital. He
described his experience as being “really tough, almost a year of staying at home getting
unemployment and staying with the kids doing homeschooling through the internet” (Tr. 22).
Respondent disclosed that he lost his father in February 2021. He asserted that “I pose no threat
to any passengers or anybody if, you know, if I’m treated nicely and fairly. But, if I’m in a
position where I fear for my safety . . . I protect myself or, I, I panic, you know” (Tr. 22).
Finally, respondent submitted a letter of support from Rabbi Moishe Winner of the
Chabad Neshama Center in Brighton Beach, issued on the day of trial (Resp. Ex. B). The Rabbi
wrote that he first met respondent in 2016 after respondent’s mother had passed away and that
since then, respondent has dedicated time to helping his community. He further wrote that
during the pandemic, respondent volunteered many hours to pack and deliver food to the needy.
Ms. Vagman prefaced her testimony with what a wonderful son-in-law and father
respondent is. She corroborated that on the day of the incident, respondent was supposed to take
her to an appointment because she is disabled and cannot walk properly (Tr. 39). After waiting a
while, she thought that he could not find a parking spot, so she went downstairs using her walker.-6-
She saw respondent lying down “on the rail, stair steps” with his face beaten and bleeding. He
was having trouble breathing. She almost fainted and a manager held her (Tr. 40, 46). Her
daughter, who works at a nearby hospital arrived and called for an ambulance. When the
ambulance arrived, respondent’s blood pressure and oxygen level were checked, after which it
departed. According to Ms. Vagman, respondent could not stand up and he was crying.
Respondent went to the manager’s room where there was a recording of the incident. She
lamented the treatment that was meted out to respondent, especially given that he was frequently
at her building and he was well-known. Ms. Vagman admitted that she did not see the scuffle
when she came downstairs (Tr. 40-41). During cross-examination, she also admitted that
respondent was wearing a mask when she saw him (Tr. 45-46).
Before addressing respondent’s testimony, I must note that I did not find Ms. Vagman to
be credible. There is no doubt that she absolutely loves her son-in-law. But it was clear to me
that her testimony consisted of fragments of what she was told, of what she observed, in part, of
the aftermath of the incident, and a great deal of fabrication. For instance, neither the arrest
report nor respondent’s testimony alluded to any injuries sustained by respondent. Yet, Ms.
Vagman posited that she saw respondent’s face beaten and bleeding. It is hard to imagine that
respondent would have sustained such injuries and mention not one iota about them. Moreover,
Ms. Vagman did not explain how she was able to observe the condition of respondent’s face if
his mask was on, as she insisted that it was.
I was not persuaded by respondent’s testimony. His claim that he entered the building
through its rear entrance as a tenant was exiting, bypassed the elevators and went directly to the
security guard was incredible. Instead, I am more inclined to believe that, having forgotten his
cell phone at home, respondent entered through the rear entrance in an attempt to get to the
elevator, unnoticed, to go to Ms. Vagman’s floor, and that the security guard spotted and stopped
him. I have no doubt that respondent was anxious to get to Ms. Vagman. But that anxiety
neither justifies nor mitigates his volatile behavior, which was more likely due to the guard
denying him permission to go upstairs. And I did not find respondent’s admission that he must
have thrown the first punch to be noble or humble.
For this proceeding, the issue is whether the facts support a finding that respondent poses
a direct and substantial risk to the public health or safety if his license suspension is lifted while
his criminal case is pending. Pursuant to Nnebe, that requires a consideration not only of the-7-
conduct underlying respondent’s arrest but also the overall record and character of the driver.
931 F.3d at 82. Here, there is no evidence that respondent has a prior arrest record. His driver’s
record is unremarkable, which is not surprising because he has not had his licenses for many
years. In fact, one was only issued in 2017. Ms. Vagman, who claimed to have seen
respondent’s face beaten and bloodied, and the Rabbi, whose letter was clearly prepared for trial
purposes, praised respondent as being a great family man and a generous contributor of his time
during the pandemic. That, in itself, is questionable. Respondent did not mention it and in fact
suggested that during the pandemic, his time was consumed with caring for his young children
while his wife worked.
Respondent did not appear to accept responsibility, first claiming that his arrest was
based on a misunderstanding and then adding that it was done because management of the
building thought that he might sue. Moreover, his declaration that he poses no threat to
passengers was conditioned on him being “treated nicely and fairly.” Given respondent’s
apparent lack of remorse and accountability for assaulting the guard who was simply doing his
job, as well as respondent’s own words which suggest that his reactions are conditioned on the
treatment that is meted out to him, it is not clear to me that a disagreeable passenger might not
trigger a similar response.
In short, I am concerned that lifting the suspension of respondent’s licenses while the
criminal charges are pending against him would pose a direct and substantial threat to the public
health and safety.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Respondent was arrested for assault in the third degree in
violation of section 120.00 of the Penal Law, after he got into
an altercation with a security guard at his mother-in-law’s
home.
2. Neither respondent’s nor his lone witness’ account of what
happened on the day in question was credible.
3. Even considering respondent’s record outside of his arrest, I
am not convinced that he does not pose “a direct and
substantial threat” to public health and safety.-8-
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that respondent’s licenses remain suspended pending the outcome of his
criminal case.
Ingrid M. Addison
Administrative Law Judge
June 9, 2021
SUBMITTED TO:
ALOYSEE HEREDIA JARMOSZUK
Commissioner/Chair
APPEARANCES:
TAKARA STRONG, ESQ.
Attorney for Petitioner
JERRY SHVADRON
Self-Represented RespondentJune 22, 2021
Aloysee Heredia Jarmoszuk
Commissioner
Ryan Wanttaja Jerry Shvadron
Deputy Commissioner/
General Counsel
Legal Affairs
33 Beaver Street,
Re: TLC License No. 5834729
22nd Floor
New York, NY 10004 Licensee Shvadron:
+1 212 676 1135 tel
+1 212 676 1102 fax Pursuant to TLC Rule 68-15, a summary suspension hearing was concluded on
June 2, 2021, as a result of your April 15, 2021 arrest for assault in the third
degree.
After hearing the evidence presented, the presiding Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”), Ingrid M Addison, found that your suspension should remain in place
until the criminal charges are resolved.
On June 11, 2020, you were mailed a copy of the ALJ’s decision and a letter
advising you of the right to submit a written response within ten (10) days to
the Chairperson of the Commission. More than ten days have passed and you
have failed to submit any written comments.
I accept the ALJ’s recommendation and will keep the suspension of your TLC
license in place.
Sincerely,
/s/ Ryan Wanttaja
Ryan Wanttaja
General Counsel
cc: Ingrid M. Addison, Administrative Law Judge
Anita Armstrong, Supervising Attorney, OATH Trials (TLC)You can also read
