You are here: / / NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR...

NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS AND LIVERY VEHICLES UPHELD.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kahn too detailed to be summarized here, upheld the validity of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission’s (TLC’s) “Accessibility Rules” which aim to increase the number of hybrid and wheel-chair-accessible taxicabs and livery vehicles:

In keeping with [the] legislative intent, the TLC promulgated sections 51-03, 58-50 and the other aspects of the Accessibility Rules. In those rules, the TLC established a precondition for commencement of the program that encouraged the development of a vehicle that is both compliant with [Administrative Code] § 19-533 [re: hybrid vehicles] and accessible, consistent with its twin statutory mandates of promoting cleaner air and serving disabled passengers. Recognizing that such a vehicle might not be developed, however, the TLC included language in this rule limiting the time period in which this precondition remained in effect to no later than January 1, 2016, 20 months after the Accessibility Rules were promulgated. In doing so, the TLC rationally promulgated rules providing for a reasonable period of time for the development of an accessible hybrid electric vehicle while ensuring that, at minimum, the TLC’s mandate to increase the number of accessible taxicabs would be fulfilled. Matter of Clair v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 06768, 1st Dept 10-13-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS AND LIVERY VEHICLES UPHELD)/TAXIS (NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS AND LIVERY VEHICLES UPHELD)/DISABILITIES, PERSONS WITH (NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS AND LIVERY VEHICLES UPHELD)/HYBRID VEHICLES (NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS AND LIVERY VEHICLES UPHELD)

You might also like
Continuous Representation Doctrine Did Not Toll the Statute of Limitations for the Legal Malpractice Cause of Action/Fraud, Excessive Fees and Unjust Enrichment Causes of Actions Were Not Duplicative of the Legal Malpractice Cause of Action/Punitive Damages Claim Properly Pled
THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
THE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS REQUIRING A SHUTDOWN AND REOPENING RESTRICTIONS DID NOT TERMINATE PLAINTIFF RETAIL STORE’S LEASE AS A MATTER OF LAW; THE DOCTRINES OF FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE AND IMPOSSIBILITY DO NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).
ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATED CPLR 1209 IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE ACTION, HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, AS AN ASSIGNEE, WAS ENTITLED TO ARBITRATE ITS CLAIM FOR CARE PROVIDED TO THE INJURED INFANT (SECOND DEPT).
“Sole Proximate Cause” Defense Not Demonstrated
FIXING A LEAKY ROOF NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS.
A RETROCESSIONAL INSURER WHICH PAID OUT A SETTLEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE INSURED IN THE UNDERLYING LABOR LAW 240(1) LADDER-FALL CASE, IS ENTITLED TO BRING A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE LAWYERS FOR THE INSURED (FIRST DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, AS OPPOSED TO AN INSINCERE PROMISE OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS RAISED IN REPLY AND WAS NOT RAISED BELOW, IT WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT WAS DETERMINATIVE, DID NOT ALLEGE NEW FACTS, AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF RAISED BELOW (FIRST DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

COTENANT ACQUIRED THE OTHER COTENANT’S INTEREST BY ADVERSE POSSESSIO... DEFENSE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF A CODEFENDANT’S CONVICTION;...