Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York

______________________________ METROPOLITAN TAXICAB BOARD OF TRADE; OSSMAN ALI; AYALLO HACKING CORP.; BONANZA CAB CORP.; BATH CAB CORP.; RONDEB CAB CORP.; and NEW YORK CITY COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS FIDLER, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of New York; THE CITY OF NEW YORK; THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION (TLC); and DAVID YASSKY, in his official capacity as Commissioner, Chair, and Chief Executive Officer of the TLC, Defendants. ______________________________ Index No. 102472/2012 (Engoron, J.) AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF MANHATTAN BOROUGH PRESIDENT SCOTT M. STRINGER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ANDREW L. KALLOCH OFFICE OF THE MANHATTAN BOROUGH PRESIDENT 1 CENTRE STREET, 19 FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10007 TELEPHONE: (212) 669-3872 FACSIMILE: (212) 669-4900
TH

Attorney for Amicus Curiae Dated: June 19, 2012

New York, NY

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................ii INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................iii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE.......................................................................................iv STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OF THE CASE.................................................................iv ARGUMENT..........................................................................................................................vi I. THE BOROUGH TAXI PLAN WAS SUBJECT TO MONTHS OF PUBLIC DELIBERATION AND DEBATE, INCLUDING HIGH-LEVEL DISCUSSIONS AMONG THE GOVERNOR, MAYOR, AND PLAINTIFFS...............................viii II. THE BOROUGH TAXI PLAN WILL FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM TAXI SERVICE IN NORTHERN MANHATTAN, THE BRONX, QUEENS, BROOKLYN, AND STATEN ISLAND, AND WILL PROVIDE THOUSANDS OF ACCESSIBLE VEHICLES THROUGHOUT THE FIVE BOROUGHS..........ix III. NEW YORK CITY EXERCISES CONSIDERABLE CONTROL OVER THE BOROUGH TAXI PLAN THROUGH BOTH THE MAYOR AND ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES IN ALBANY.........................................................................xi IV. IN CONTRAST TO COMMUTER VANS OPERATING WITHIN NYC, THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS NEVER GRANTED THE CITY EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE ISSUANCE OF TAXI MEDALLIONS.....................xiii V. COURTS HAVE HISTORICALLY SHOWN DUE DEFERENCE TOWARD THE LEGISLATURE.........................................................................................................xv CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................xv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Delmar Box Co., Inc. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 309 N.Y. 60 (1955)............................................................13 Elmwood-Utica Houses v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 65 N.Y.2d 489 (1985)............................................14 Giuliani v. Council of the City of New York, 688 N.Y.S.2d 413 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1999)............12 MacWade v. Kelly, 460 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2006).................................................................................5 Morin v. Foster, 45 N.Y.2d 287 (1978)...............................................................................................7 New York City Comm. for Taxi Safety v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn, 681 N.Y.S.2d 509 (1st Dept 1998).................................................................................................................12, 13 New York v. State, 76 N.Y.2d 479 (1990)..........................................................................................14 Noel v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Comm'n, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148091 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).........................................................................................................................................10, 11 Sonmax, Inc. v. New York, 43 N.Y.2d 253 (1977).............................................................................11 Statutes N.Y. Transportation Law 80(5).......................................................................................................13 NYC Administrative Code 19-504.2..................................................................................................13 Other Authorities McKinneys Statues 153.................................................................................................................14 N.Y. Const. Art. IX, 2...................................................................................................................2, 6 New York City Charter, 2303.........................................................................................................12 New York City Charter, 82...............................................................................................................3

ii

INTRODUCTION
This case presents the question of whether a historic law designed to give the City the opportunity to improve access to safe, legal and convenient taxi service for over seven million New York City residents who live outside of the neighborhoods where yellow taxi service is generally available, duly signed into law by the Governor following nearly a year of public debate which included discussions between the Governor, Mayor, and the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, complies with the home rule provision of the New York State Constitution. N.Y. Const. Art. IX, 2.1 Section I of this brief will discuss the significant public debate that led to the passage of the instant legislation. Section II will describe the critical importance of this legislation for the nearly 550,000 residents of Northern Manhattan, as well as residents of the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island, and limited mobility individuals in all five boroughs. Section III will focus on the fact that the Borough Taxi plan, as signed into law by Governor Cuomo, does not mandate a change, but rather provides the City the option of improving taxi service within certain parameters. New York City therefore exercises considerable control over the plan, both through the Mayor and elected representatives in Albany. Section IV will discuss how the States delegation of power over intra-City commuter van service, and the comparative lack of delegation of the taxi system, shows that the State Legislature has long held the authority to regulate taxi service in New York City. Section V states that the Court of Appeals traditional deference to the political branches on matters related to home rule should be considered in this case.
1

Plaintiffs also set forth a number of additional claims in their Complaint. However, amicus argument is limited to the Home rule claim.

iii

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

Amicus, Scott M. Stringer, is the Manhattan Borough President, representing nearly 1.6 Manhattan residents. The Charter mandated responsibilities of the Borough President include reviewing certain public and private land-use projects in Manhattan, appointing members to Community Boards and providing support to those boards, exercising direct control over a portion of the Citys capital and expense budget and, most broadly, improving the quality-of-life in Manhattan by monitoring service delivery and proposing changes to policies affecting New Yorkers. New York City Charter, 82. Mr. Stringer was elected Manhattan Borough President on November 8, 2005, and has been in office since January 1, 2006. Prior to serving as Borough President, Mr. Stringer served for 13 years in the New York State Assembly, representing Manhattans Upper West Side. Given Mr. Stringers decades of public service, he is keenly aware of the importance of taxi and livery service to the 8.2 million residents of New York City as well as the millions more who work in and visit the City every year. Moreover, having grown up in Washington Heights, Mr. Stringer is deeply familiar with how the dearth of yellow cab service has plagued neighborhoods in Northern Manhattan and the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island for decades. As an elected representative of the peoples interests, the Borough President has a significant interest in the outcome of this litigation and the improvement of taxi service to all corners of the Borough and the City.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OF THE CASE

The facts of the case are set forth in detail in the parties briefs to this court. The basic facts are as follows.

iv

On June 20, 2011, the Assembly passed an initial version of the Borough Taxi plan by a vote of 110-28.2 That plan provided for the sale of up to 1,500 yellow taxi medallions and the creation of up to 30,000 Borough Taxis. On June 24, 2011, the Senate passed the Assembly bill by a vote of 40-21 and sent it to the Governors desk.3 Over the next six months, negotiations took place in Albany and in New York City involving many interested parties, including certain named plaintiffs. On December 23, 2011, Governor Cuomo signed into law Chapter 602 of the Laws of 2011, and on February 17, 2012, signed into law Chapter 9 of the Laws of New York 2012, which repealed certain sections and amended other sections of the previous statute relating to for-hire vehicles in the City of New York. Notably, the bill signed into law by the Governor included significant changes from the bill passed by the State Legislature in June. In contrast to the June bill, the signed bill allowed the sale of up to 2,000 yellow taxi medallions and the creation of up to 18,000 Borough Taxis. In addition, the bill required all 2,000 yellow taxi medallions to be for accessible vehicles and mandated that 20 percent of Borough Taxis also be wheelchair-accessible. On April 18, 2012, plaintiffs filed the complaint in the instant case. On April 19, 2012, TLC approved rules implementing the Borough Taxi program authorized by the Street Hail Livery Law, which were to become effective on June 2, 2012. On June 1, 2012, this court issued a temporary restraining order halting the sale/auction of medallions and permits.
2

Bill No. A-8476 (2011), available: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/? default_fld=&bn=A08496&term=2011&Summary=Y&Text=Y; http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/? default_fld=&bn=A08496&term=2011&Summary=Y&Votes=Y&Text=Y (accessed 14 Jun. 2012); Only 12 of the 64 Assembly members from New York City voted against the bill. 3 Bill No. S-5825, available: http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A8496-2011 (accessed 14 Jun. 2012); Only 6 of the 28 Senators from New York City voted against the bill.

ARGUMENT
In 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals waxed poetic about the seminal place of the New York City subway system in the Citys urban fabric. The New York City subway system is a singular component of Americas urban infrastructure. The subway is an icon of the Citys culture and history, an engine of its colossal economy, a subterranean repository of its art and music, and, most often, the place where millions of diverse New Yorkers and visitors stand elbow to elbow as they traverse the metropolis. MacWade v. Kelly, 460 F.3d 260, 264 (2d Cir. 2006). While no public transit system in America can compare to the size of the New York City Subway, the link between the yellow cab and New York City in the popular imagination4 reflects the remarkable scope of the taxi industry in New York City. Every day, people take more than 485,000 taxi trips in New York in one of 50,000 vehicles, driven by one of nearly 100,000 drivers, making the system the seventh-largest public transportation network in the country.5 And yet, for decades, this network has largely served neighborhoods in the Manhattan Core (south of E. 96th St. and W. 110th St.) and the airports. According to GPS data provided by the TLC, only 2% of yellow taxicab pickups are in Northern Manhattan.6 95% of yellow taxicab pickups are in the Manhattan Core, at John F. Kennedy International Airport or LaGuardia Airport.7 And only 3% of yellow taxicab pickups are in Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens and Staten Island.8 Last year, at the urging of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the State legislature passed a law authorizing, but not requiring, the City to issue a new class of taxi permit (a HAIL permit or
4

The Wall Street Journal described the New York City taxi as having an outsize importance in popular culture. Andrew Grossman, Cab of Future: Still Yellow, But Different, Wall Street Journal (16 Nov. 2010), available: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703326204575617033297091158.html (accessed 14 Jun. 2012). 5 Lizzie Widdicombe, Thin Yellow Line, The New Yorker (18 Apr. 2011), p. 72; see also About TLC, available: http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/about/about.shtml (accessed 14 Jun. 2012). 6 NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission GPS Tripsheet data 7 Id. 8 Id.

vi

Borough Taxi permit) for service in underserved neighborhoods outside the Manhattan Core. Describing the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the state of New York traveling to, from and within the city of New York as a substantial state concern, the bill stated what seven million New Yorkers already know: [that] the majority of residents and nonresidents of the city of New York do not currently have access to the necessary amount of legal, licensed taxicabs available for street hails when traveling within the city. After months of deliberations among leaders from the Legislature, industry (including named plaintiffs in the instant case), community, and disability groups, Governor Cuomo signed historic reform into law in December 2011, paving the way for a revolutionary transformation in the way TLC serves the people of New York. Months before the plan was to take effect, plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit seeking to block the plan, arguing that its passage violates the home rule amendment of the New York State Constitution. N.Y. Const. Art. IX, 2. It is notable that while home rule claims are usually made by the local legislative body (or municipality) aggrieved by the alleged usurpation of local authority, the City Council of New York has not challenged the constitutionality of the Borough Taxi plan. Simply put, the Borough Taxi plan has been one of the most heavily debated, longawaited pieces of legislation in recent memory. In addition, while the City Council did not pass a home rule message as it has for previous taxi medallion sales, there is no legal basis for the plaintiffs supposition that if a home rule message has previously been issued on a given subject that a home rule message must be issued on that subject. As the Court of Appeals has recognized, the fact that a given Legislature(s) has conducted business or passed legislation in a particular manner cannot be held to bind future legislatures to follow the same path. Elected officials must exercise legislative and governmental

vii

powers, within their own sound discretion, as the needs require. Ordinarily they may not so exercise their powers as to limit the same discretionary right of their successors to exercise that power and must transmit that power to their successors unimpaired. Morin v. Foster, 45 N.Y.2d 287, 293 (1978). Moreover, the bill, as passed by the State Legislature, does not require TLC to make any changes to the existing taxi system. Rather, it provides the Mayora democratically-elected official answerable to voters in all five boroughswith the administrative authority to make changes within set parameters pursuant to local processes of public input for rule promulgation. Lastly, the fact that the State Legislature has specifically delegated authority over commuter vans to the City, but has not taken similar steps with regard to the Citys taxi system, suggests that the State continues to retainas it always hascontrol over the issuance of additional taxi medallions, a conclusion that should be granted deference by this court. I. THE BOROUGH TAXI PLAN WAS SUBJECT TO MONTHS OF PUBLIC DELIBERATION AND DEBATE, INCLUDING HIGH-LEVEL DISCUSSIONS AMONG THE GOVERNOR, MAYOR, AND PLAINTIFFS. Mayor Bloomberg first called for the establishment of a Borough Taxi program in January 2011, at his annual State of the City Address. This year, well establish a new category of livery cars that can make on-street pickups outside of Manhattan. It will give New Yorkers in all five boroughs another safe, reliable and convenient option for getting around. Because whether youre standing on 42nd Street in Manhattan or 42nd Street in Sunset Park, Brooklyn or 42nd Street in Sunnyside, Queens, you ought to be able to hail a cab.9 Then, the legislative process began in earnest. The lawyer-poet John Godfrey Saxe famously said that, Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made.10 However, while legislative logrolling has a long and infamous history in
9

www.nyc.gov/html/om/html/2011a/pr021-11.html (accessed 13 Jun. 2012). The Daily Cleveland Herald, (29 Mar. 1869), cited in Fred Shapiro, QuoteMisquote, The New York Times (21 Jul. 2008), available: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/magazine/27wwwl-guestsafire-t.html?_r=1 (accessed 14 Jun. 2012).
10

viii

American politics, the deliberation and debate over the Borough Taxi plan was loud, boisterous, and very much open to the scrutiny of the press and the public. As WNYC reported, In the six months between the announcement of the plan in January and the passage of the legislation in June, there were feverish negotiations and loud rallies organized by various factions of the yellow and black car stakeholders.11 In addition, following the bills initial passage in June, Governor Cuomo continued to engage in high-level talks with stakeholders for another six months. In fact, the Governor personally chaired two taxi summits calling industry stakeholders to his offices in New York City and Albany.12 According to Capital New York, a meeting in November 2011 included representatives from the city and from the state legislature[and] representatives from every segment of the industry.13 The discussions were apparently constructive. As the spokesperson for one of the lead plaintiffs in this lawsuit stated at the time, Everyone had an opportunity to talk. It was a lot of listening. And most of the issues that weve been working with and working through were raised.14 II. THE BOROUGH TAXI PLAN WILL FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM TAXI SERVICE IN NORTHERN MANHATTAN, THE BRONX, QUEENS, BROOKLYN, AND STATEN ISLAND, AND WILL PROVIDE THOUSANDS OF ACCESSIBLE VEHICLES THROUGHOUT THE FIVE BOROUGHS While the Borough Taxi plan was first discussed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg in his January 2011 State of the City address, the problem that the Mayor sought to solvethe lack of

11

Kathleen Horan, The Taxi Bills Long, Winding Road, WNYC News Blog (22 Dec. 2011), available: http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/wnyc-news-blog/2011/dec/22/year-taxis/ (accessed 13 Jun. 2012). 12 Id. 13 Dana Rubenstein, Cuomos Summit on Bloombergs Taxi Bill Yields the Promise of Maybe More Talks, at Least, Capital New York (4 Nov. 2011), available: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2011/11/4019245/cuomos-summit-bloombergs-taxi-bill-yieldspromise-maybe-more-talks- (accessed 14 Jun. 2012). 14 Id.; The deliberations were not just for show. In fact, they led to significant changes in the legislation ultimately signed into law in December 2011 and further modified in February 2012. See Statement of Facts, supra, p. A-4.

ix

reliable, legal, regulated taxi service in Northern Manhattan and the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Islandhas been a persistent problem in New York City for decades. In fact, New York City has long had two separate and unequal taxi systems depending on where you live. In the Manhattan Core and at the airports, passengers can either call ahead for a livery car or street hail a yellow taxi. In the rest of the city, passengers effectively have the choice of calling ahead for a livery car or illegally hailing a livery car, since yellow cabs rarely serve areas outside the Manhattan Core. As a result, illegally hailing livery cabs is a daily part of life for the nearly 550,000 residents of Northern Manhattan, who report hailing liveries an average of 5.2 times per month, according to TLC surveys.15 Twenty-seven community-based livery base stations in Northern Manhattan serve this market. Collectively, these stations dispatch a total of 3,707 cars and employ over 5,000 drivers, the majority of whom are immigrants and/or people of color.16 Livery cabs, while providing a valuable service to meet the demand of the over 7 million New Yorkers who live outside the Manhattan Core, do not have the benefits yellow taxi passengers currently enjoy. These include metered fares, credit/debit card payment, GPS mapping, and vehicles that have roof lights and distinctive markings that make them easy to distinguish from unlicensed and sometimes unsafe vehicles. This legislation would provide all of those benefits in underserved communities, while also dramatically improving accessibility for people with disabilities. The Borough Taxi Plan will increase yellow cab accessibility nearly ten-fold, with all 2,000 new taxi medallions being issued for wheelchair-accessible cabs. In addition, 20% of the 18,000 new borough taxis will be accessible.
15

TLC Passenger Survey conducted Nov. 2010 through Feb. 2012. 120 respondents identified themselves as living in Northern Manhattan. 16 TLC Licensing data.

Accessibility is a critical part of the plan, not only because limited-mobility New Yorkers deserve fair and equitable access to the Citys transit network, but also because the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York recently ruled that the TLCs current yellow cab system is not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and required the TLC to propose a comprehensive plan to provide meaningful access to taxicab service for disabled wheelchair bound passengers. Noel v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Comm'n, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148091 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).17 Lastly, the Borough Taxi plan provides an additional $1 billion of revenue for the City. While City Budget Director Mark Page told the City Council that while the City has some limited ability to absorb the loss of funds from the sale of yellow cab medallions, such a loss would only widen the already $3 billion projected deficit in Fiscal Year 2014.18 While some have criticized City Hall for including revenue from the sale of yellow medallions in the FY 13 budget, that presumption seems far from unreasonable given that the plan had been signed into law by the Governor in December and went unchallenged in the courts until April 2012. III. NEW YORK CITY EXERCISES CONSIDERABLE CONTROL OVER THE BOROUGH TAXI PLAN THROUGH BOTH THE MAYOR AND ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES IN ALBANY. The plaintiffs claim that the legislative process has left New York City without a voice fails to acknowledge the important roles played by both the Mayor and State Legislators from New York City in securing the passage of the Borough Taxi plan.19 These officials were not only actively engaged in negotiations among stakeholders, but also in issuing surveys and holding
17 18

This case is currently on appeal in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Dana Rubenstein, Delay of Mayors Borough Taxi Plan Could Increase Next Years Deficit to $4 Billion, Capital New York (6 Jun. 2012), available: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/06/6007190/delaymayors-borough-taxi-plan-could-increase-next-years-deficit-4- (accessed 14 Jun. 2012); Doug Turetsky of the New York City Independent Budget Office surmised that the City could take the $1 billion it was setting aside from the Retiree Health Benefits Trust Fund for the FY 2014 budget and apply it to FY2013 instead. However, that budget maneuver does little more than shift the deficit from one calendar year to the next. 19 As noted, supra, n. 2-3, the vast majority of New York City legislators voted for the Borough Taxi Plan.

xi

public forums in their communities to educate the public about the plan, receiving suggestions for amendments, and gaining feedback from voters.20 There is a considerable volume of state and federal legislation that affects the residents of New York City. While the City Council does not have the authority to block said legislation, it would certainly be incorrect to assert that New York City residents do not exercise any control over these laws. By its very nature, representative democracy in the United States and New York State provides New York City residents with the ability to elect Senators, Representatives, and Assembly members who are answerable directly to the voters. In contrast to the state/federal legislation described above, New York City retains significant control over the Borough Taxi plan since the legislation does not require that New York City take any action whatsoever to change the taxi system. C.f. Sonmax, Inc. v. New York, 43 N.Y.2d 253, 258 (1977) (holding that the City of New York had exclusive authority to pass a Local Law regulating tax foreclosure proceedings because, By express provision the State procedure is optional, rather than mandatory, i.e., local tax districts may elect to take advantage of its provisions but are not required to do so. (emphasis added)); see also Noel, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148091 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (requiring the TLC to propose a comprehensive plan to provide meaningful access to taxicab service for disabled wheelchair bound passengers.). Rather, the legislation authorizes the TLC, under the direction of the Mayor, to create a new class of taxis within certain parameters. In other words, what the City decides to do with its

20

See, e.g. Paula Neudorf, Outer-borough Taxi Fleet On Its Way, Queens Chronicle (28 Jul. 2011), available: http://www.qchron.com/editions/western/article_a232b795-bba5-5db0-85bc8766cb273fde.html (accessed 16 Jun. 2012); Martin Malav Dilan, Borough Taxis: Take the Survey, Let the City Know What You Think, (11 Mar. 2011), available: http://www.nysenate.gov/blogs/2011/mar/11/borough-taxis-take-survey-let-city-know-what-you-think (accessed 16 Jun. 2012).

xii

authorization from the State is entirely within the Citys discretion, and the Mayor, as the Citys top elected official, is directly answerable to the voting public of New York City.21 IV. IN CONTRAST TO COMMUTER VANS OPERATING WITHIN NYC, THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS NEVER GRANTED THE CITY EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE ISSUANCE OF TAXI MEDALLIONS. In determining the historical scope of the States exercise of power over the New York City taxi industry, it is useful to draw a comparison with the States handling of the commuter (or jitney) van industry that emerged in the City in the 1980s. That comparison shows that the State Legislature has long asserted control over the issuance of taxi medallions in New York City, even after handing over exclusive authority of commuter vans to the City in 1992. Following a series of transit strikes in 1980, commuter vans proliferated outside the Manhattan Core. These vans, despite providing transportation services within New York City, were regulated by the New York State Department of Transportation until 1992, when Transportation Law 80(5) allowed the City to assume local control over the vans. Giuliani v. Council of the City of New York, 688 N.Y.S.2d 413, 415-416 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1999) (emphasis added). Transportation Law 80(5) states that the commissioner of the State Department of Transportation: [S]hall not have jurisdiction over the regulation of any van service or other common carrier of passengers by motor vehicle covered under article seven of this chapter when such van service or other such common carrier is operated wholly within the boundaries of such city or is operated partly within such city if the partial operation consists of the pick up and discharge of passengers wholly within such city, when such city has adopted an ordinance, local law or charter to regulate or franchise such operations.
21

The TLC enjoys a broad grant of authorityunder New York City Charter 2303 to promulgate and implement a pervasive regulatory program for the taxicab industry, including standards and conditions of service, safety, design, comfort and convenience, requirements for the issuance, renewal, suspension and revocation of licenses, and requirements for the maintenance of financial security, insurance and minimum coverage. New York City Comm. for Taxi Safety v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn, 681 N.Y.S.2d 509, 510 (1st Dept 1998).

xiii

N.Y. Transportation Law 80(5).22 The fact that the State Legislature specifically delegated its authority over commuter vans that operated within the confines of the five boroughs suggests the following: (a) that the State Legislature believed it had authority to regulate those vans, independent of the home rule amendment; and, more importantly, (b) that the fact that no similar delegation of authority has been made from the State Legislature to the City of New York or the TLC regarding taxi medallion issuanec signals that the State Legislature has long believed that is possesses the independent right to regulate the field. Indeed, while it is true that the TLC enjoys a broad grant of authorityunder New York City Charter 2303 to promulgate and implement a pervasive regulatory program for the taxicab industry, including standards and conditions of service, safety, design, comfort and convenience, requirements for the issuance, renewal, suspension and revocation of licenses, and requirements for the maintenance of financial security, insurance and minimum coverage, it does not and has never enjoyed the authority to issue taxi medallions or permits at will. New York City Comm. for Taxi Safety v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn, 681 N.Y.S.2d 509, 510 (1st Dept 1998); see Delmar Box Co., Inc. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 309 N.Y. 60, 66 (1955) (It is a cardinal principle of statutory interpretation that the intention to change a long-established ruled or principle is not to be imputed to the legislature in the absence of a clear manifestation (citing McKinneys Statues 153)).

22

The City Council, armed with authority over jitney vans, quickly moved to restrict their operation on City streets. See NYC Administrative Code 19-504.2 (also known as Local Law 115 (1993)). In more recent years, commuter vans have become a more important part of the Citys public transit network, particularly as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has been forced to cut routes due to lack of funding. See Gary Buiso, City Seeks Dollar Vans to Operate on Dead MTA Routes, New York Post (28 Jul. 2010), available: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/city_seeks_dollar_vans_to_operate_FabeCpZ3VYL9dGbFLK4PYK (accessed 16 Jun. 2012) (discussing TLCs approval of an initiative that would allow vans to operate along bus routes eliminated by the MTA).

xiv

Rather, as in the instant matter, the State Legislature retains express authority to grant authorization for additional permits and medallions.23 While the State Legislatures continued exercise of authority over taxi medallion issues in New York City does not, standing alone, decide the merits of this case, it is entitled to due deference by this court, as explained below. V. COURTS HAVE HISTORICALLY SHOWN DUE DEFERENCE TOWARD THE LEGISLATURE. The Court of Appeals has historically shown considerable deference to the political branches on questions related to the extent of home rule rights. [W]hile fully mindful of the importance of home rule, we are sensitive as well to another fundamental precept of government: that, whether or not we endorse their wisdom, acts of the Legislature are presumptively valid and cannot be overturned unless proved unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. New York v. State, 76 N.Y.2d 479, 487 (1990); see also id. at 485 ([E]nactments of the Legislature, a co-equal branch of government, are presumed to be constitutional; those who challenge statutes bear a heavy burden of proving unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt.) (citing Elmwood-Utica Houses v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 65 N.Y.2d 489, 495 (1985)).24 In this instance, the State Legislature has asserted that the Borough Taxi plan is a matter of substantial state concern. While this statement alone does not determine the applicability of home rule, it warrants traditional deference in the consideration of this court.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons cited above, and those discussed in Defendants brief, amicus urges the
23

The last authorization for the issuance of new medallions prior to the legislation at issue in the instant matter was in 2003, when the State Legislature authorized the sale of up to 900 yellow cab medallions. See Taxi and Limousine Commission, 2004 Annual Report to the New York City Council, (10 Jan. 2005), p. 4. 24 While deference is due on issues related to the constitutionality of duly-passed legislation, it is particularly reasonable to exercise discretion in home rule cases, since when a bill is introduced in the Assembly or Senate, it is automatically reviewed by home rule Counsel in each house to determine whether a home rule message is required. See http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/libdev/libs/pldtools/guide/1homerul.htm (accessed 16 Jun. 2012).

xv

court to deny the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and grant the Defendants CrossMotion for Summary Judgment.

__________________________ ANDREW L. KALLOCH Office of the Manhattan Borough President 1 Centre Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10007 (212) 669-3872 Counsel for Amicus Curiae Manhattan Borough President

xvi