7/27/2019 4381_001.pdf

1/3

In re Bl-ack Car AssistanceCorporation, et aJ-.,Petitioners -Appel lants,-against-

The City of New York, et af.,Re spondent s -Re spondents ,

Metropolitan Taxicab Boardof Trade, et 1.,f nte rvenor -Re spondent s -Re spondent sGibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York (Randy M. Mastro ofcounsel), for appell-ants.

Friedman,10904

Michael ASternberg

J.P Sweeny, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.Index I00321 / 1.3

Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ronald E.of counsel) , for respondents.Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, New York (Richard D. Emeryof counsel), for inervenor-respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol- Huff, J. ) 'enLered April 26, 201-3t which denied the petition to en;oin theimpJ-ementation of respondent Taxi and Limousine Commission's(TLC) twel-ve-month pilot program to alfow medallion cabs toarrange passenger pickups via smart phone applications (E-HailProgram), vacated the t.emporary rest.raining order, and dismissedthe proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR articl-e JB, unanimouslyaffirmed, without costs.

1I

7/27/2019 4381_001.pdf

2/3

Petitioners, entities that represent or have financialinterests in businesses that operate black or J-very cars, filedthe instant petition for an order decfarj-ng the E-hail Programnull and void, arguing that respondent TLC exceeded its authorityin adopting this programf that provisions of the programimproperly depart from applcabJ-e provisions of the New York CityAdministrative Code, and that t.he program r/as adopted withoutcomplyi-ng wth procedures required to change rules pursuant tothe New York City Administrative Procedure Act (CAPA) and inviol-ation of the State Environmental- Quality Review Act (SEQRA).Contrary t.o petitioners' arguments, the E-HaiI Program complieswith the pJ-ain language of New York City Charter Section2303 (b) (9), as it was adopted for the "limit.ed purpose" ofstudying the feasabil-ity of using smarl phone application to hailmedall-ion taxis and for t.he "l-imited time" of l-2 months,AdditionaIly, the program complies with Administrative Code S 19-511 (a) requiring the Iicensing of communications systems uponsuch terms as TLC deems advisable by giving TLC the authority toissue temporary authorizations for the communications systemsneeded to accept passenger hails electronically, as t.hoseauthorizations function as temporary, Iimited 1icensesappropriate for a pilot program.

12

7/27/2019 4381_001.pdf

3/3

Further, we find that to the extent the E-Hail Programto cancelIl-ows drvers to ignore efectronic hail requests or

previously accepted requests in favor of street hails' this doesnot viofat.e Administrative Code S 1-9-507 (al Q), which prohibitsdrivers from refusing, "without justifiable groundsr to take anypassenger or prospective passenger to any destination within thecrLy." We also find that t.he program '/\ras proper]y adopted, isnot j-n viol-ation of SEQRA and, as a temporary and voluntarypiJ-ot program, is noL subject to CAPA procedural reguirements.

TH]S CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDEROF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE D]VISION/ FTRST DEPARTMENT.ENTERED: OCTOBER 29t 2013

CLERK

t5