Kissena Forum Archive

Jun 01, 2017 at 06:13 PM

when i worked for a reputable moving company in high school we would often rent budget trucks in the high-demand summer months. try to get his employer information (the insurance info on the accident report might be through budget, not through his employer). if he was on the job employer will have to cover him if he was acting within the scope of employment unless i've forgotten everything i learned on the bar exam

Jun 08, 2017 at 03:09 PM

This isn't a directly bicycle-related problem but, who here has ever successfully fought a parking violation? About three weeks ago I found a ticket in the windshield of a friend's car I was borrowing. "In Violation of NYC Traffic Rules, Section 4-08(e)(2), Fire Hydrant, 4 feet from hydrant"

Of course I immediately took a photo of how I'd parked:

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5019667/uploads/editor/p9/hs93lq84vyir.jpg

It's close, for sure. But here's my question: is it four feet from the hydrant itself, or four feet from those posts on either side of the hydrant?

Jun 08, 2017 at 03:14 PM

15ft minimum from hydrant, curbs aren't always painted

Jun 08, 2017 at 03:34 PM

See, I was reading the ticket to mean that the law requires only four feet on either side (I haven't looked up the law yet). But now I see that where the ticket says "four feet from hydrant" it's referring to where I parked, not to what the law requires....

Jun 08, 2017 at 03:37 PM

Jun 08, 2017 at 03:38 PM

Well I'll only make that $115 mistake once.

Jun 08, 2017 at 03:41 PM

check the rest of the ticket @MaxThorn , if anything is off about the make/model/color of the car you can fight it

Jun 08, 2017 at 03:42 PM

Interesting. I'll check. Have you done that before? What's the argument?

Jun 08, 2017 at 07:07 PM

MaxThorn said:

Well I'll only make that $115 mistake once.

sorry max. happened to me when i first got a car in the city. 15 feet is a lot more than you think it is! they towed the car too on that occasion...

Jun 08, 2017 at 07:25 PM

MaxThorn said:

Interesting. I'll check. Have you done that before? What's the argument?

Argument is, that's not my car haha (if anything is different from the vehicle title)

Myles

Jun 08, 2017 at 07:29 PM

I was walking out 16 steps today on the uws just for this reason

Jun 08, 2017 at 08:02 PM

JohnOlsson said:

MaxThorn said:

Interesting. I'll check. Have you done that before? What's the argument?

Argument is, that's not my car haha (if anything is different from the vehicle title)

i don't understand how this argument works. if the car isn't yours why are you answering a parking ticket for it? or you mean argue that the picture of the car is not yours? i has confuse

Jun 08, 2017 at 08:03 PM

Brendan Rigby said:

JohnOlsson said:

MaxThorn said:

Interesting. I'll check. Have you done that before? What's the argument?

Argument is, that's not my car haha (if anything is different from the vehicle title)

i don't understand how this argument works. if the car isn't yours why are you answering a parking ticket for it? or you mean argue that the picture of the car is not yours? i has confuse

if the make/model on the ticket doesnt match the make/model on your title than you can claim it isn't your car

Jun 08, 2017 at 08:05 PM

I believe John is referring to something like these:

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5019667/uploads/editor/gl/80lpk4b39out.png

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5019667/uploads/editor/ql/f587qglndxdo.png

Source: NYC Dept. of Finance website http://www1.nyc.gov/site/finance/vehicles/dispute-a-ticket.page

Jun 08, 2017 at 08:18 PM

*more of an uncommon reason =p

Jun 08, 2017 at 08:52 PM

i think the defects they're talking about are things like if the ticket fails to describe what you actually did wrong. as in, the ticket makes it impossible to know how you violated the law. i don't think it's just for perfunctory details.

at least with criminal charges, the accusatory instrument must make clear what you actually did that violated the law. there must be more than a conclusion; the accusatory instrument must contain allegations of fact. if the ticket just states what the law is, and then concludes you violated it, that's insufficient and it's dismissed. for example, "defendant committed assault" is not acceptable. the acceptable version is: "defendant committed assault when he caused substantial pain to the complainant by striking her in the face repeatedly with his fist causing lacerations that required medical treatment." one lacks facts, so it's not sufficient. but if they spell your name wrong, you don't get to have your case dismissed.

edit: we get a lot of summonses dismissed this way for things like drinking in a park after dark, alcohol and beverage code violations, etc. they end up in the criminal court if the person warrants on their summons date, but the accusatory instruments rarely contain any factual allegations so the judges mostly dismiss them as "conclusory" because a “conclusory statement . . . does not alone meet the reasonable cause requirement,” People v. Dreyden, 15 N.Y.3d 100, 104 (2010). but i'm not sure that same standard applies to parking tickets, hah

i can see the following happening:

defendant: "got a ticket on a car that says i parked less than 15' away from a hydrant by parking only 4' from a hydrant, it had my correct name and address as well as the VIN of a car registered to me, but the ticket says the car is brown and my car isn't brown...so dismiss the ticket?"

administrative law judge: "well, why did you pick the ticket up?"

defendant: "because it was on the windshield of my car"

administrative law judge: "thank you for admitting that the ticket was affixed to the correct car. guilty."

Jun 08, 2017 at 08:57 PM

That was my sense of the issue as well, but of course it's nice to hear from a practicing lawyer.