|
|
| Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process (241455) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (241455) | |
Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Thu Aug 18 01:54:13 2011 video from: NY1 NewsNY1 has followed the stories of several viewers who got $100 summons because of trouble with ticketing machines on the Select Bus Service routes. NY1's Transit reporter Tina Redwine went to court on Wednesday with a viewer and discovered many passengers are fighting a court process that is anything but transparent. Aaron Goldberg took the morning off work to go to Brooklyn to fight a $100 summons for boarding the super-express Select Bus Service in Manhattan without the required paper ticket. As NY1 previously reported, Goldberg has a monthly unlimited MetroCard but did not have the paper ticket because both machines at his stop that read the MetroCard were broken. On Wednesday, NY1 saw Goldberg win his case. "NY1 is the only reason I was able to get the evidence I need to get have my ticket dismissed," Goldberg said. He described the process that requires a trip to the Transit Adjudication Bureau as "unfair." Many waiting in court echoed that view to NY1, as they tried to get information on how to defend themselves against tickets involving what they claimed was the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's faulty equipment. "I am going to have to wait for them to send another appointment in the mail. Then they're going to give me the paperwork to send to transit, which is going to take me a month to get. It's frustrating," said Sharone Lott, who got a summons. "You go to sit up there for four hours just to see a guy for five minutes," said Dan Moriarity, who also got a summons. "Jumping through hurdles to get a little ticket taken care of. It's tortuous." The New York Civil Liberties Union says the process is "torturous" and has been for two years suing the MTA to open the court to the public. It won that suit a few weeks ago, but NYCLU officials said more reform is needed. "Frankly, a lot of unfair things happening in these hearings," said NYCLU Associate Legal Director Chris Dunn. Dunn said non-English speakers would plead guilty, not knowing their rights, so translators have been added to the court. "Don't get a summons, because you don't want to be going down to that place, because once you go down there, you're probably not going to understand what's going on," said Dunn. "The deck is going to be stacked against you, and it's just a very dark and mysterious process." MTA officials said they are trying to make the process easier for the public to navigate by increasing the MTA's presence on the website and developing a brochure. But mass transit users with summons will still have to go to court. |
|
|
| (241488) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Aug 18 12:15:17 2011, in response to Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by Gold_12TH on Thu Aug 18 01:54:13 2011. Okay, so Gold states that without NY 1 he could not of won his case. What did the MTA want him to do to prove both machines were out of order? If he asked them for a letter stating so, could he get it? |
|
|
| (241490) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Aug 18 12:53:52 2011, in response to Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Aug 18 12:15:17 2011. Why should his ticket be dismissed? The policy if the machines are broken is:1. Take down the machine number. 2. If a machine is not working, please board the bus and tell the bus operator. Did he do those two things? |
|
|
| (241491) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Aug 18 13:04:03 2011, in response to Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Aug 18 12:53:52 2011. Because he didn't evade the fare since he had an unlimited card and the machines were broken which wasn't his fault. . That's why. Any other details as to what he should or should not have done is irrelevant. The judge agreed. Why else do you think he was found Not Guilty.You already proved you can't have an intelligent discussion by not responding to my Autism post. So there is no use continuing this discussion. |
|
|
| (241499) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Aug 18 13:27:47 2011, in response to Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Aug 18 13:04:03 2011. Because he didn't evade the fare since he had an unlimited card and the machines were broken which wasn't his fault. . That's why. Any other details as to what he should or should not have done is irrelevant. Incorrect. This is very basic stuff. Do you even know what the rule is??? Obviously you don't. So I'll go out of my way to tell you (bold emphasis added by me): "No person shall use or enter upon the facilities or conveyances of the Authority, for any purpose, without the payment of the fare or tender of other valid fare media used in accordance with any conditions and restrictions imposed by the Authority. For the purposes of this section, it shall be considered an entrance into a facility or conveyance whenever a person passes through a point at which a fare is required or collected. No person shall, for purposes of gaining entry into a facility, proceed over or under any turnstile or otherwise proceed in any other unauthorized manner through an exit gate or through or past any other point at which a fare is required or collected and it shall be no defense to a charge of a violation of this subdivision that fare media, a fare media sales device or a fare collection device was malfunctioning." IINM, the last sentence in that rule was recently added SPECIFICALLY because people were jumping the turnstiles or entering through the service gate and then, after getting caught, claiming that they were innocent since they had a valid Unlimited Ride card on them, but that either the card wasn't working properly or the turnstiles were not working properly. So as I have just shown, you are completely wrong and totally ignorant to the facts. you can't have an intelligent discussion No, that would describe YOU, since you make these ridiculous posts without knowing the applicable facts. |
|
|
| (241575) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Aug 19 10:13:28 2011, in response to Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Aug 18 13:27:47 2011. Then kindly explain the reason for the judge finding him innocent?Answer that question before you start insulting people and start SHOUTING AT THEM. You also did not provide any proof that any of the the people with unlimited cards who entered through the fare gates because turnstiles were malfunctioning were found guilty either, only that they received summonses. Just because the MTA says a broken turnstile shall be no defense, doesn't make it so is a judge does not see it the same way. This proves how it is not possible to have an intelligent discussion with you, so if you cannot answer in a reasonable tone of voice, just keep quiet. We will all be better off. |
|
|
| (241577) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri Aug 19 10:46:54 2011, in response to Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by Gold_12TH on Thu Aug 18 01:54:13 2011. What would really sort this out would be for the judge to routinely award costs against the MTA when it's found that a ticket has been issued wrongly. There is enough of a mess around the edges of the fare system that someone needs a kick up the rear end to sort it out. |
|
|
| (241587) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri Aug 19 11:33:41 2011, in response to Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri Aug 19 10:46:54 2011. They are NOT impartial judges. The TAB is an administrative court controlled by the New York City Transit Authority (MTA).In 1984, the New York State Legislature created TAB as part of the NYCTA in order to, inter alia, “hear and determine[] charges of transit infractions.” Id. § 1209-a(4)(1). Although statutorily created in 1984, TAB did not commence adjudication of transit violations until March 1986. (Dewan Decl. ¶ 1.) This document has some background info It is the quintessential definition of a KANGAROO COURT. The administrative judges will never penalize their employer! |
|
|
| (241606) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Fri Aug 19 14:51:39 2011, in response to Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Aug 18 13:27:47 2011. The Transit Authority has had a problem because the act involved in situations like this (i.e., entering a transit facility after having paid the fare but without having "used" a fare collection device) is not a criminal act. Section 165.15(3) of the Penal Law, which otherwise criminalizes fare evasion as "theft of services," a class A misdemeanor, requires that the person so charged have the intent to obtain subway or bus service without payment of the lawful charge therefor. But in fact a person committing such an act has paid the lawful charge, and it is the Authority that has failed to verify that the lawful charge has been paid. Thus, there is no crime.To get around what the Authority considers to be a problem, it has enacted administrative rules pursuant to powers grated to the Authority by Section 1204(5-a) of the Public Authorities Law: "To make, amend and repeal rules governing the conduct and safety of the public as it may deem necessary, convenient or desirable for the use and operation of the transit facilities under its jurisdiction, including without limitation rules relating to the protection or maintenance of such facilities, the conduct and safety of the public, the payment of fares or other lawful charges for the use of such facilities, the presentation or display of documentation permitting free passage, reduced fare passage or full fare passage on such facilities and the protection of the revenue of the authority." (Section 1203-a(3) grants the same powers to MaBSTOA as have been granted to NYCTA. It appears as though MTA Bus Company has no such powers, cannot enforce NYCTA rules on its operations, and it would have to rely upon the Penal Law alone.) The rule quoted by the prior poster was adopted by NYCTA pursuant to such powers granted to it, and has been codified at 21 NYCRR § 1050.4(1). It is interesting to look at it more closely. It specifically proscribes the "use or [entry] upon the facilities or conveyances of the Authority" unless a person does either one of two things: (1) "payment of the fare," or (2) "tender of other valid fare media used in accordance with any conditions and restrictions imposed by the Authority." So what does "payment of the fare" mean? Well, that is defined—sort of—at 21 NYCRR § 1050.2(11): "'Payment of the fare' includes the use at a fare collection device of a time-based farecard for purposes of gaining lawful entry into a facility or conveyance." Since this "definition" uses the word "includes" without any other limiting words, it leaves the open the possibility that there are other things that can constitute "payment of the fare" (and this makes sense because many people make "payment of the fare" on buses by depositing coins in farebox, an act not within this "definition"). More rigidly defined is the definition of "fare" at 21 NYCRR § 1050.2(8): "'Fare' means the lawful charges established by the Authority for the use of its facilities." Thus, someone who acquires an "unlimited" MetroCard by paying the lawful charge therefore has paid a "fare" within the meaning of Section 1050.2(8), and has arguably made "payment of the fare" within the meaning of Section 1050.2(11). And what about the other condition, "tender of other valid fare media used in accordance with any conditions and restrictions imposed by the Authority." There is no rule defining "tender" so the ordinary definition of "offering" should apply (and under that ordinary definition the other party need not "accept" the offer for a "tender" to have been made). Now such tender must be made by using other fare media (e.g., MetroCards) in accordance with the Authority's conditions and restrictions. Where are those conditions and restrictions? Section 1204(5-a) of the Public Authorities Law permits the Authority to adopt rules regarding "the presentation or display of documentation permitting free passage, reduced fare passage or full fare passage on such facilities," I see no such rule that requires a person to insert a MetroCard into a fare collection device and receive a printed receipt therefore as necessary for a valid tender. So now let's look at the provision of Section 1050.4(1) that was emphasized by the prior poster. It says, "it shall be no defense to a charge of a violation of this subdivision that fare media, a fare media sales device or a fare collection device was malfunctioning." Now, a defense to a violation of Section 1050.4(1) might be that the charged passenger did in fact make "payment of the fare." Such a defense would be supported by evidence showing that the passenger paid "the lawful charges established by the Authority for the use of its facilities." For this defense there is no need to rely upon the fact that there was any malfunctioning device. That is, the fare was paid regardless of the status of any any particular device. Another defense would be that the MetroCard was "tendered." That an Authority machine that malfunctions might mean that the Authority is unable to accept a tender, but the fact that a machine has malfunctioned does not affect the tender itself. In other words, there is no need to rely upon a defense that a device is malfunctioning since the tender was complete when the MetroCard was presented and without regard to any Authority acceptance of the MetroCard. I think the prior poster is correct to the extent that the Authority would like to place the burden on passengers when its own machines malfunction. But since that very concept is inherently unfair, it requires significant convolution of the law to effectuate that result. I don't think the Authority has sufficiently convoluted the law. Nonetheless, it is likely that the administrative law judges at the Transit Adjudication Bureau will either implement the intent of the the Authority notwithstanding the failure of the rules to express that intent, or that those judges will simply adopt a simplistic reading of the rules without going through the more rigorous analysis above. |
|
|
| (241618) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Aug 19 17:24:53 2011, in response to Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by BusMgr on Fri Aug 19 14:51:39 2011. So now let's look at the provision of Section 1050.4(1) that was emphasized by the prior poster. It says, "it shall be no defense to a charge of a violation of this subdivision that fare media, a fare media sales device or a fare collection device was malfunctioning." Now, a defense to a violation of Section 1050.4(1) might be that the charged passenger did in fact make "payment of the fare." Such a defense would be supported by evidence showing that the passenger paid "the lawful charges established by the Authority for the use of its facilities." For this defense there is no need to rely upon the fact that there was any malfunctioning device. That is, the fare was paid regardless of the status of any any particular device. Another defense would be that the MetroCard was "tendered." That an Authority machine that malfunctions might mean that the Authority is unable to accept a tender, but the fact that a machine has malfunctioned does not affect the tender itself. In other words, there is no need to rely upon a defense that a device is malfunctioning since the tender was complete when the MetroCard was presented and without regard to any Authority acceptance of the MetroCard. Epic post! Thanks for all that. Did you really just write all that or did you have the bulk of it saved from a prior circumstance? In any event, thanks again. So the defense arguments you provided, as well as your conclusion that the defense arguments should be sufficient to clear the accused passenger of wrongdoing, are based on your own theories and not of actual decisions rendered by the TAB, correct? So you're not sure if any administrative law judge at the Transit Adjudication Bureau has in the past, or would in the future, agree with you and render a 'not guilty' verdict, right? But the person in the NY1 article was cleared of the charges so it seems the administrative law judge found some sort of defense valid. Now how does the following affect what you wrote: We're here to help: What to do if you can't obtain a receipt at a fare collection machine or have some other problem Take down the machine number. If a machine is not working, please board the bus and tell the bus operator. If a machine does not issue a receipt or return your MetroCard or coins ask the bus operator for a business reply envelope or call: 212 MetroCard (212-638-7622). It seems to be saying that if you follow this procedure, you can still ride the SBS, especially since it does not say that you must still pay a valid fare before boarding, even if you have to double-pay (and then you would follow the procedure to receive a refund on the first fare you paid). I think the prior poster is correct to the extent that the Authority would like to place the burden on passengers when its own machines malfunction. Thank you! But since that very concept is inherently unfair... It seems like there should be a clearer policy and list of instructions for what to do in situations like when all of the metrocard validation machines at an SBS bus stop are not working. The bus drivers and enforcement officers (and passengers) should all be aware of it so that passengers who follow the rules do not get a summons in the first place. |
|
|
| (241620) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Aug 19 17:41:55 2011, in response to Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Aug 19 10:13:28 2011. Then kindly explain the reason for the judge finding him innocent? Ask the reporter, not me. Answer that question before you start insulting people and start SHOUTING AT THEM. You have repeatedly either not admitted when you are wrong, replied with ridiculous arguments, or completely ignored my posts so that you wouldn't have to defend your incorrect statements. You also did not provide any proof that any of the the people with unlimited cards who entered through the fare gates because turnstiles were malfunctioning were found guilty either, only that they received summonses. I wasn't talking about a specific incident. I was referring to what the news articles said. Just because the MTA says a broken turnstile shall be no defense, doesn't make it so is a judge does not see it the same way. Um, doesn't a judge have to uphold the law? What I quoted is the law. If there are flaws in the law, then fine. But assuming the law is not flawed, then how could the judge ignore the law? This proves how it is not possible to have an intelligent discussion with you, so if you cannot answer in a reasonable tone of voice, just keep quiet. We will all be better off. No, it's the other way around. You can't have an intelligent discussion. So many people told you that the elevator existed and you were quite rude to them all. Photographic proff was even posted and you still continued to insist that the elevator did not exist! |
|
|
| (241621) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Aug 19 18:16:25 2011, in response to Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Aug 19 17:24:53 2011. Did you really just write all that or did you have the bulk of it saved from a prior circumstance?You really can't just let anything be without making it seem questionable, can you? |
|
|
| (241622) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Fri Aug 19 18:21:53 2011, in response to Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Aug 19 17:24:53 2011. All that was written is present day; nothing "saved" from prior circumstances.As far as I know, TAB decisions are not reported anywhere. It was only recently that the ACLU won a suit permitting the public to attend TAB hearings. I don't know how one would research prior TAB decisions. In taking a quick look at reported Supreme Court opinions I saw nothing relevant. Especially since Select Bus Service is still relatively new, I don't know how prior cases were defended, decided, or how TAB would decide future cases . . . all I can do is speculate. That speculation is that the TAB would affirm the NoV, and the passenger would have to go to Supreme Court to have a real decision rendered. But who's going to take the time and effort over a $100 civil penalty? The information about "what to do" is not an adopted rule. However, it could very well be helpful to a defendant. It could very well be saying, in essence, that a person may tender a MetroCard to the bus operator (of course, the bus operator has no way to accept the tender offer, but that's another matter), and if a person does do so, that could very well be a defense based on the "tender" prong of the definitional rule. It would likely not preclude a defense based on the tendering of the MetroCard to the fare collection device (malfunctioning as it may be), and it would not preclude a defense based on the passenger having paid the lawful fare. But it would provide an additional defense avenue. Agreed entirely that systems ought to be in place that make fare collection and enforcement easy for both passengers and the Authority. But this is laziness on the part of the Authority, giving added credibility to the expression "good enough for government work" with respect to designing such systems and blaming the public for the Authority's own design failures. |
|
|
| (241623) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin station on Fri Aug 19 18:41:22 2011, in response to Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Aug 19 18:16:25 2011. Huh? Are you having another reading comprehension failure? He certainly understood what I meant. LOL @ you not understanding! |
|
|
| (241624) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin station on Fri Aug 19 18:41:23 2011, in response to Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Aug 19 18:16:25 2011. Huh? Are you having another reading comprehension failure? He certainly understood what I meant. LOL @ you not understanding! |
|
|
| (241625) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Aug 19 18:46:49 2011, in response to Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by Terrapin station on Fri Aug 19 18:41:23 2011. Double PostDouble Post |
|
|
| (241626) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Fri Aug 19 18:49:22 2011, in response to Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Aug 19 18:46:49 2011. Why Bother to respond?Why Bother to respond? |
|
|
| (241627) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin station on Fri Aug 19 18:53:58 2011, in response to Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Aug 19 18:46:49 2011. Obviously. My cellphone does that sometimes. Thanks for the concern though, captain obvious... |
|
|
| (241632) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Aug 19 20:23:09 2011, in response to Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by Railman718 on Fri Aug 19 18:49:22 2011. So I would be a pain like he is.So I would be a pain like he is. |
|
|
| (241633) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Fri Aug 19 20:42:46 2011, in response to Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Aug 19 20:23:09 2011. +1 |
|
|
| (241637) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by The Flxible Neofan on Fri Aug 19 21:30:16 2011, in response to Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Aug 18 12:53:52 2011. Where in the world is THAT policy posted?! Where did you find this information? |
|
|
| (241638) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by The Flxible Neofan on Fri Aug 19 21:33:04 2011, in response to Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by The Flxible Neofan on Fri Aug 19 21:30:16 2011. Disregard this post - I found the information through another link in this thread. I hope this is posted at the bus stop... |
|
|
| (241660) | |
Re: Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process |
|
|
Posted by South FERRY on Fri Aug 19 23:36:28 2011, in response to Court Fight Against MTA Summons Can Be A Mysterious Process, posted by Gold_12TH on Thu Aug 18 01:54:13 2011. How does "developing a brochure" address the faulty machines?? |
|
|