yellow cabs vs new york city

8/22/2019 Yellow cabs vs New York City

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/yellow-cabs-vs-new-york-city 1/23

================================================================= Thi s opi ni on i s uncor r ect ed and subj ect t o r evi si on bef or epubl i cat i on i n t he New Yor k Repor t s.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -No. 98Gr eater New York Taxi

Associ at i on, et al . ,Respondent s,

v. The Stat e of New Yor k, et al . ,

Appel l ant s,Li ver y Base Owner s I nc. , et al . ,

I nt er venor s- Appel l ant s.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -No. 99 Taxi cab Servi ce Associ at i on,et al . ,

Respondent s,v.

The Stat e of New Yor k, et al . ,Appel l ant s,

Li ver y Base Owner s, I nc. , et al . ,I nt er venor s- Appel l ant s.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -No. 100Met r opol i t an Taxi cab Boar d of Tr ade, et al . ,

Respondents, The Li ver y Roundt abl e, I nc. , et

al . , I nt er venor s- Respondent s,v.

Mi chael R. Bl oomber g, &c. , etal . ,

Appel l ant s,Li ver y Base Owner s I nc. , et al . ,

I nt er venor s- Appel l ant s.

Case No. 98:Scot t Shor r , f or Ci t y appel l ant s.

Ri char d Dear i ng, f or St at e appel l ant s.St ephen L. Saxl , f or i nt er venor s- appel l ant s.St even G. Mi nt z, f or r espondent s.Of f i ce of t he Manhat t an Bor ough Pr esi dent , ami cus

cur i ae.

Case No. 99:Scot t Shor r , f or Ci t y appel l ant s.



Ri char d Dear i ng, f or St at e appel l ant s.St ephen L. Saxl , f or i nt er venor s- appel l ant s.Randy M. Mast r o, f or r espondent s.Of f i ce of t he Manhat t an Bor ough Pr esi dent , ami cus

cur i ae.

Case No. 100:Scot t Shor r , f or appel l ant s.Ri char d Dear i ng, f or i nt er venor - appel l ant St at e of New

York.St ephen L. Saxl , f or i nt er venor s- appel l ant s Li ver y Base

Owner s I nc. et al .Ri char d D. Emer y, f or r espondent s.Submi t t ed by St even J . Shanker , f or i nt er venor s-

r espondent s.Of f i ce of t he Manhat t an Bor ough Pr esi dent , ami cus

cur i ae.

PI GOTT, J . :

At i ssue on t hi s appeal i s t he const i t ut i onal i t y of

chapt er 602 of t he Laws of 2011, as amended by chapt er 9 of t heLaws of 2012 ( "HAI L Act " ) , whi ch r egul at es medal l i on t axi cabs ( or

"yel l ow cabs") and l i ver y vehi cl es, vi t al par t s of New Yor k

Ci t y' s t r anspor t at i on syst em. The Act ' s st at ed ai m i s t o addr ess

cer t ai n mobi l i t y def i ci enci es i n t he Ci t y of New Yor k, namel y:

t he l ack of accessi bl e vehi cl es f or r esi dent s and non- r esi dent s

wi t h di sabi l i t i es; t he dear t h of avai l abl e yel l ow cabs i n t he

f our bor oughs out si de Manhat t an ( "out er bor oughs" ) , wher e

r esi dent s and non- r esi dent s must i nst ead r el y on l i ver y vehi cl es;

and t he spar se avai l abi l i t y of yel l ow cab ser vi ce out si de

- 1 -



- 2 - Nos. 98- 100

Manhat t an' s cent r al busi ness di st r i ct1 and t he t wo Queens

ai r por t s, l ocat i ons wher e cl ose t o 95% of yel l ow cabs pi ck up

t hei r cust omer s ( see Sponsor ' s Mem, Bi l l J acket , L 2012, ch 9) .I .

Because t he HAI L Act ar guabl y af f ect s t he yel l ow cab

and l i ver y vehi cl e ent er pr i ses i n si gni f i cant ways, we f i r st

addr ess t he t r adi t i onal di st i nct i ons bet ween t hem bef or e

addr essi ng t he subst ance of t he Act i t sel f . Bot h ent er pr i ses ar e

r egul ated by the Taxi and Li mousi ne Commi ss i on ( "TLC") , but are

subj ect t o di f f er ent r ul es of oper at i on.

Yel l ow cabs oper at e under a t r ansf er abl e l i cense or

medal l i on, whi ch i s a number ed pl at e i ssued by t he TLC t hat i s

af f i xed t o t he out si de of a t axi cab as physi cal evi dence t hat t he

t axi cab has been l i censed t o oper at e as a medal l i on t axi cab ( see

35 RCNY 51- 03) . These cabs ar e metered vehi cl es t hat must char ge

uni f or m r at es ( see Admi ni st r at i ve Code of Ci t y of NY §§ 19- 502

[ k] - [ l ] , 19- 514 [ a] ; 35 RCNY 58- 38) . They possess t he excl usi ve

r i ght t o pi ck up passenger s pur suant t o st r eet "hai l s" f r om any

l ocat i on i n t he Ci t y ( see Admi ni st r at i ve Code of Ci t y of NY §

19- 504 [ a] [ 1] ) .

I n 1956, t he New Yor k St at e Legi sl at ur e del egat ed t o

t he Ci t y Counci l t he di scret i onar y aut hor i t y t o r egi st er , l i cense

1 The cent r al busi ness di st r i ct i s t he par t of Manhat t an

t hat i s sout h of East 96t h St r eet and West 110t h St r eet ( see e. g.HAI L Act § 4 [ c] ) .

- 2 -



- 3 - Nos. 98- 100

and l i mi t t he number of yel l ow cabs, and t o est abl i sh or di nances

and r egul at i ons r egul at i ng parki ng and passenger pi ck- up and

di schar ges ( see Gener al Muni ci pal Law § 181 [ 1] , [ 2] ; see al so NYCi t y Char t er § 2303 [ b] [ 4] ) . 2 Pr i or t o 1996, t he Ci t y Counci l

had capped the number of medal l i ons t hat t he TLC may i ssue at

11, 787. Between 1996 and 2008, t he Ci t y Counci l appr oved t he

i ssuance of 1, 450 addi t i onal medal l i ons, r esul t i ng i n a t ot al of

13, 237. Gi ven t he l i mi t ed suppl y of medal l i ons, t hei r val ue has

i ncr eased year l y and t he compet i t i on f or obt ai ni ng one i s f i er ce.

Mor eover , accor di ng t o t he TLC, out of t he 13, 237 i ssued

medal l i ons, onl y 231 ar e cabs t hat ar e accessi bl e to peopl e wi t h

di sabi l i t i es.

I n cont r ast t o yel l ow cabs, l i ver y vehi cl es ar e

pr ohi bi t ed f r om pi cki ng up st r eet hai l s and may accept passenger s

onl y on the basi s of t el ephone cont r act or ot her pr ear r angement

( see Admi ni st r at i ve Code of Ci t y of NY § 19- 507 [ a] [ 4] ) . The

l i ver y cl i ent cont act s a "base st at i on" t hat di spat ches a l i ver y

vehi cl e t o t he r equest ed l ocat i on ( Admi ni st r at i ve Code of Ci t y of

NY § 19- 511) . However , t hi s has not prevent ed some l i ver y

vehi cl es f r om i l l egal l y accept i ng st r eet hai l s, wher e t he pr i ce

of t he f ar e i s not r egul at ed. As wi t h yel l ow cabs, a subst ant i al

number of l i ver y vehi cl es ar e i l l - equi pped t o pr ovi de ser vi ce t o

2 Because the sal e of medal l i ons above t hei r admi ni st r at i ve

cost i mpl i cat es t he New Yor k St at e Legi sl at ur e' s t axi ng power ,t he Ci t y Counci l must f i r st obt ai n l egi sl at i ve appr oval bef or eauct i oni ng t he medal l i ons ( see NY Const , ar t XVI , § 1) .

- 3 -



- 4 - Nos. 98- 100

per sons wi t h di sabi l i t i es.

I I .

Enact ed by t he New Yor k St at e Legi sl at ur e i n t he l at t erpar t of 2011 and t he ear l y part of 2012, t he HAI L Act cr eat es,

among ot her t hi ngs, a "HAI L Li cense Pr ogr am" t hat cal l s f or t he

TLC t o i ssue 18, 000 "Hai l A ccessi bl e Int er - bor ough Li censes"

al l owi ng "f or - hi r e vehi cl es, " 3 i . e. , l i ver y vehi cl es, t o accept

st r eet hai l s i n t he out er bor oughs and t hose ar eas i n Manhat t an

out si de i t s cent r al busi ness di st r i ct ( HAI L Act §§ 4 [ b] , 5 [ a] ) .

TLC- l i censed yel l ow cabs r et ai n " t he excl usi ve r i ght . . . t o

pi ck up passenger s vi a st r eet hai l i n such ar eas of t he ci t y

wher ei n HAI L l i cense hol der s are pr ohi bi t ed f r om accept i ng such

passenger s" ( i d. at § 11) . The Act demar cat es t hese ar eas –

Manhat t an' s cent r al busi ness di st r i ct and t he t wo Queens ai r por t s

– as t he "HAI L Excl usi onar y Zone" ( i d. at § 4 [ c] ) .

Li ver y vehi cl es wi t hout a HAI L l i cense ar e per mi t t ed t o

accept pr ear r anged cal l s f r om a base st at i on est abl i shed pur suant

t o New York Ci t y Admi ni st r at i ve Code § 19- 511 i nsi de the HAI L

Excl usi onar y Zone, whi l e l i ver y vehi cl es possessi ng a HAI L

l i cense may accept pr ear r anged cal l s out si de t he HAI L

Excl usi onar y Zone and at ai r por t s ( i d. at § 5 [ f ] ) . HAI L

3 A "f or - hi r e vehi cl e" i s "a mot or vehi cl e car r yi ng

passenger s f or - hi r e i n t he ci t y, wi t h a seat i ng capaci t y of t went y passenger s or l ess, not i ncl udi ng t he dr i ver , ot her t han at axi cab, coach, commut er van or an aut hor i zed bus operat i ngpur suant t o appl i cabl e pr ovi si ons of l aw" ( HAI L Act § 4 [ d][ emphasi s suppl i ed] ) .

- 4 -



- 5 - Nos. 98- 100

vehi cl es, 4 however , may not accept pr ear r anged cal l s wi t hi n the

HAI L Excl usi onar y Zone ( i d. at § 4 [ c] ) . Dr i ver s wi t h a val i d

HAI L l i cense who accept st r eet hai l s i n ar eas wher e such vehi cl esar e not per mi t t ed t o do so ar e subj ect t o var i ous penal t i es ( i d.

at §§ 25 and 26; see Admi ni st r at i ve Code of Ci t y of NY § 19- 506

[ k] , [ l ] ) .

The Act cal l s f or HAI L l i censes t o be di st r i but ed i n

i ncr ement s of 6, 000 over t hr ee year s, wi t h 20% of t he f i r st 6, 000

ear mar ked f or accessi bl e vehi cl es5 ( i d. at § 5 [ b] ) . Subj ect t o

a "HAI L market anal ysi s, " whi ch the TLC must pr epare and submi t

t o the Ci t y Counci l and t he New Yor k St ate Depar t ment of

Tr anspor t at i on "exami ni ng HAI L vehi cl e r i der demand, shor t ages

and t he need f or adequat e and af f or dabl e t r anspor t at i on" ( i d. at

§ 6) , t he TLC may i ssue up t o 6, 000 HAI L l i censes i n t he second

and t hi r d year s ( "second i ssuance" and " t hi r d i ssuance, "

r espect i vel y) ( i d. at § 5 [ b] ) . The second and t hi r d i ssuances

ar e l i kewi se subj ect t o t he 20% accessi bi l i t y requi r ement unl ess

t he TLC, havi ng conduct ed a st udy and i ssued a r epor t r el at i ve t o

"t he accessi bi l i t y of vehi cl es wi t h HAI L l i censes i n t he Di sabl ed

4 A "HAI L vehi cl e" i s "a f or - hi r e vehi cl e havi ng a t axi met er

and a TLC- sanct i oned t r i p r ecor d system and [ i s] subj ect t o aHAI L l i cense" ( HAI L Act § 4 [ f ] ) .

5 Accessi bl e vehi cl es ar e "f or - hi r e" vehi cl es t hat ar e

"desi gned f or t he pur pose of t r anspor t i ng per sons i n wheel chai r sor cont ai n[ ] a physi cal devi ce or al t er at i on desi gned t o per mi taccess t o and enabl e the t r anspor t at i on of per sons i n wheel chai r si n accor dance wi t h t he Amer i cans wi t h Di sabi l i t i es Act " ( HAI L Act§ 4 [a]).

- 5 -



- 6 - Nos. 98- 100

Accessi bi l i t y Pl an, "6 r ecommends a di f f er ent per cent age ( i d. ; see

HAI L Act § 10) . HAI L l i censes i ssued dur i ng t he f i r st , second

and t hi r d year s wi l l cost $1, 500, $3, 000 and $4, 500, r espect i vel y( i d. at 5 [ d] ) .

I n or der t o i nt r oduce accessi bl e vehi cl es i nt o t he HAI L

vehi cl e f l eet , t he TLC must l aunch a pr ogr am t hat pr ovi des

"gr ant s t o pur chaser s of HAI L l i censes r est r i ct ed t o accessi bl e

vehi cl es as pr ovi ded i n [ HAI L Act § 9 ( b) ] " or pr ovi de "vehi cl es

t o pur chaser s of HAI L l i censes r est r i ct ed t o accessi bl e vehi cl es

on af f or dabl e and f i nanci al l y f easi bl e t er ms" ( HAI L Act § 9 [ a]

[ i ] , [ i i ] ) . HAI L Act § 9 ( b) pr ovi des t hat " [ p] ur chaser s of hai l

l i censes rest r i cted t o accessi bl e vehi cl es . . . shal l be

el i gi bl e t o appl y f or gr ant s" of up t o $15, 000 t o appl y towar d

ei t her t he pur chase of "an accessi bl e vehi cl e f or use as a HAI L

vehi cl e" or t owar d "r et r of i t t i ng a vehi cl e t o be an accessi bl e

vehi cl e, " wi t h t he t ot al amount of such gr ant s not t o exceed $54

mi l l i on.

As i t r el at es t o yel l ow cabs, t he Act creat es an

"Accessi bl e Taxi cab Progr am, " whi ch al l ows t he Mayor t o

admi ni st r at i vel y aut hor i ze t he TLC t o i ssue by publ i c sal e up t o

6

The "Di sabl ed Access i bi l i t y Pl an" i s, among ot her t hi ngs,a "compr ehensi ve pl an" t hat pr ovi des "an accessi bi l i t y pl an ( i )t hat wi l l l ead t o meani ngf ul accessi bi l i t y over a per i od of year sf or i ndi vi dual s wi t h di sabi l i t i es to al l t axi cabs, f or - hi revehi cl es and HAI L vehi cl es t hr ough gr adual phase- i n of accessi bl evehi cl es t o t he t axi cab, f or - hi r e vehi cl es and HAI L vehi cl et r anspor t syst em . . . " ( HAI L Act § 10 [ a] ) .

- 6 -



- 7 - Nos. 98- 100

2, 000 t axi cab l i censes ( or medal l i ons) t hat ar e r est r i ct ed t o

vehi cl es desi gnat ed f or t he pur pose of t r anspor t i ng per sons i n

wheel chai r s or cont ai ni ng a physi cal devi ce or al t er at i ondesi gned t o per mi t access t o and enabl e t he t r anspor t at i on of

per sons i n wheel chai r s i n accordance wi t h t he Amer i cans wi t h

Di sabi l i t i es Act ( see HAI L Act § 8) . The Act st at es t hat not

more t han 400 of such l i censes may be i ssued unt i l t he Di sabl ed

Accessi bi l i t y Pl an i s appr oved by the New Yor k St ate Depart ment

of Tr anspor t at i on. Mor eover , t he Mayor ' s aut hor i t y t o i ssue

t hese l i censes i s condi t i oned upon t he TLC maki ng both t he HAI L

l i censes i n sect i on 5 of t he Act and t he "hai l pr i vi l ege vehi cl e

per mi t s" aut hor i zed pur suant t o sect i on f our of chapt er 602 of

t he Laws of 2011 avai l abl e f or i ssuance. These new accessi bl e

t axi cabs wi l l possess t he excl usi ve r i ght t o pi ck up passenger s

vi a st r eet hai l f r om any l ocat i on wi t hi n t he ci t y of New Yor k

wher e HAI L l i cense hol der s ar e pr ohi bi t ed f r om accept i ng such

passenger s ( i d. at § 11) .

Fi nal l y, as r el evant her e, t he Act cont ai ns what has

been t er med a "poi son pi l l . " I t "must be const r ued as a whol e,

and al l par t s of i t shal l be read and const r ued t oget her " such

t hat " [ i ] f any part " of or any amendment made t o i t by chapt er 9

of t he Laws of 2012 "shal l be adj udged by any cour t of competent

j ur i sdi ct i on t o be i nval i d, t he r emai nder of [ t he] act shal l be

i nval i dat ed and shal l be deemed t o have not t aken ef f ect . . . "

( i d. at § 6) .

- 7 -



- 8 - Nos. 98- 100

I I I .

Pl ai nt i f f s, who ar e medal l i on owner s and t hei r

r epr esent at i ves, an associ at i on of cr edi t uni on l ender s andcr edi t uni ons t hat f i nance medal l i on pur chases, and a member of

t he New Yor k Ci t y Counci l , chal l enge t he HAI L Act on the gr ound

t hat r egul at i on of yel l ow cab and l i ver y ent er pr i ses has al ways

been a mat t er of l ocal concer n. Al l pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m t hat t he

Act vi ol at es NY Const i t ut i on, ar t i cl e I X, § 2 ( b) ( 2) ( "Muni ci pal

Home Rul e Cl ause") . Cer t ai n pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t he Act

vi ol at es NY Const i t ut i on, ar t i cl e I X, § 2 ( b) ( 1) ( "Doubl e

Enact ment Cl ause") and NY Const i t ut i on, ar t i cl e I I I , § 17

( "Excl usi ve Pr i vi l eges Cl ause") .

Shor t l y af t er t he Gover nor si gned t he Act , pl ai nt i f f s

commenced t hese act i ons agai nst def endant s, al l seeki ng, among

ot her r el i ef , j udgment s decl ar i ng t he Act unconst i t ut i onal and

seeki ng i nj unct i ons agai nst t he Act ' s i mpl ement at i on. At

pl ai nt i f f s' r equest , Supr eme Cour t i ssued an or der t empor ar i l y

r est r ai ni ng t he St at e f r om i mpl ement i ng any sect i on of t he Act . 7

The par t i es moved t o ei t her di smi ss t he compl ai nt or f or summar y

j udgment . As r el evant her e, Supreme Cour t grant ed pl ai nt i f f s'

mot i ons, ent er ed a j udgment nul l i f yi ng t he Act , and decl ar i ng

t hat i t vi ol ated t he Muni ci pal Home Rul e, Doubl e Enactment and

7 Supr eme Cour t al so gr ant ed t he mot i ons of cer t ai n l i ver y

car compani es t o i nt er vene on behal f of pl ai nt i f f s anddef endant s.

- 8 -



- 9 - Nos. 98- 100

Excl usi ve Pr i vi l eges Cl auses of t he New Yor k Const i t ut i on. These

di r ect appeal s are bef or e us on CPLR 5601 ( b) const i t ut i onal

gr ounds, t he par t i es havi ng st i pul at ed t hat t hey woul d not appealt he non- const i t ut i onal cl ai ms deci ded adver sel y t o t hem by

Supreme Cour t .

I V.

The Muni ci pal Home Rul e Cl ause grant s l ocal

gover nment s consi der abl e i ndependence rel at i ve t o l ocal concer ns.

J ust as t her e ar e af f ai r s t hat ar e excl usi vel y t hose of t he

St at e, " [ t ] her e ar e some af f ai r s i nt i mat el y connect ed wi t h t he

exer ci se by t he ci t y of i t s cor por at e f unct i ons, whi ch ar e ci t y

af f ai r s onl y" ( Adl er v Deegan, 251 NY 467, 489 [1929] [ Car dozo,

Ch. J . , concur r i ng] ) . Nonet hel ess, "[ a] zone exi st s . . . wher e

St at e and ci t y concer ns over l ap and i nt er mi ngl e" ( i d. ) .

Enacted t o pr otect t he aut onomy of l ocal government s,

t he Muni ci pal Home Rul e Cl ause al l ows t he l egi sl at ur e t o "act i n

r el at i on t o t he pr oper t y, af f ai r s or gover nment of any l ocal

gover nment onl y by gener al l aw, or by speci al l aw onl y ( a) on

r equest of t wo- t hi r ds of t he t ot al member shi p of i t s l egi sl at i ve

body or on r equest of i t s chi ef execut i ve of f i cer concur r ed i n by

a maj or i t y of such member shi p . . . " ( NY Const , ar t I X, § 2 [ b]

[ 2] ) . Subdi vi si on ( a) ' s di r ect i ves ar e commonl y r ef er r ed t o as

t he "home r ul e message" r equi r ement because whenever a speci al

l aw i s enact ed, i t shoul d be at t he l ocal i t y' s r equest .

As pl ai nt i f f s poi nt out , t he HAI L Act i s a speci al l aw,

- 9 -



- 10 - Nos. 98- 100

i . e. , i t i s a l aw t hat "i n t er ms and i n ef f ect appl i es t o one or

mor e, but not al l . . . ci t i es" ( NY Const , ar t I X, § 3 [ d] [ 4] ) .

Al t hough the Muni ci pal Home Rul e Cl ause coul d be read t o di r ectt hat a home rul e message was r equi r ed bef ore t he Act ' s enact ment ,

t her e i s an except i on t o t hat r equi r ement wher e t he St at e

possesses a "subst ant i al i nt er est " i n t he subj ect mat t er and " t he

enact ment . . . bear [ s] a r easonabl e r el at i onshi p t o t he

l egi t i mat e, accompanyi ng subst ant i al St at e concer n" ( Ci t y of New

York v Pat r ol men' s Benevol ent Assn. of Ci t y of N. Y. [ PBA I ] , 89

NY2d 380, 391 [ 1996] ; see Empi r e St ate Chapt er of Assoc. Bui l ders

I nc. v Smi t h, ___ NY3d ___ [ 2013] [ deci ded t oday] , Pat r ol men' s

Benevol ent Assn. of Ci t y of N. Y. v Ci t y of New Yor k [ PBA I I ] , 97

NY2d 378, 386 [ 2001] ) . The l at t er r equi r ement ser ves "as a

cor ol l ar y t o t he const i t ut i onal bal anci ng of over l appi ng l ocal

and St at e i nt er est s r equi r i ng t hat t he ' subj ect s of St at e concer n

[ be] di r ect l y and subst ant i al l y i nvol ved' " ( PBA I , 89 NY2d at

391, quot i ng Adl er , 251 NY at 490 [ emphasi s i n or i gi nal ] ) .

Pl ai nt i f f s chal l enge t he Act on t he gr ound t hat t he

St at e l acks a subst ant i al i nt er est i n t he r egul at i on of t he

yel l ow cab and l i ver y ent er pr i ses i n t he Ci t y, cl ai mi ng t hat such

r egul at i on has hi st or i cal l y been wi t hi n t he pr ovi nce of t he Ci t y

i t sel f . Al t hough t he St at e has del egat ed cer t ai n power s t o t he

Ci t y Counci l concer ni ng t he regul at i on of yel l ow cabs ( see

General Muni ci pal Law § 181) , t hat does not mean t hat i t has

sur r ender ed i t s aut hor i t y t o r egul at e i n t hat ar ea, par t i cul ar l y

- 10 -



- 11 - Nos. 98- 100

wher e the pr oposed r egul at i on pr omot es a subst ant i al St at e

i nt er est ( see e. g. Adl er , 251 NY at 488 [ Car dozo, Ch. J . ,

concur r i ng] [ not i ng t hat t he power t o regul at e tenement s " wassubj ect i n i t s creat i on t o t he over r i di ng act i on of t he St at e"] ) .

Our r evi ew concer ni ng what const i t ut es a subst ant i al

st at e i nt er est i s not dependent on what hi st or i cal l y has been t he

domai n of a gi ven l ocal i t y. Rat her , our det er mi nat i on i s

dependent on t he "st at ed pur pose and l egi sl at i ve hi st or y of t he

act i n quest i on" ( PBA I , 89 NY2d at 392; see Ci t y of New Yor k v

St ate of New Yor k, 94 NY2d 577, 590 [ 2000] [ conduct i ng a

subst ant i al St at e i nt er est anal ysi s of a speci al l aw r esci ndi ng a

st at e tax on r esi dent commut er s by l ooki ng at t he l egi sl at i on' s

"st at ed j ust i f i cat i on" and l egi sl at i ve hi st or y] ; PBA I I , 97 NY2d

at 389 [ f i ndi ng a speci al l aw const i t ut i onal because i t expr essl y

st at ed " t he subst ant i al St at e concer n sought t o be addr essed" and

ensur ed t hat t he l aw was " r at i onal l y rel at ed t o t hat concer n"] ;

Mat t er of Town of I sl i p v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 50, 53- 54 [ 1984]

[ r evi ewi ng t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y of a speci al l aw l i mi t i ng t he

di sposal of sol i d wast e by l andf i l l i n Suf f ol k and Nassau

count i es] ; Mat t er of Kel l ey v McGee, 57 NY2d 522, 539- 540 [1982]

[ r evi ewi ng l egi sl at i on concer ni ng sal ar i es of Di st r i ct

Attorneys]).

I n t he cases where we have f ound a speci al l aw t o be

unconst i t ut i onal , we have done so, i n par t , because the

l egi sl at i on f ai l ed t o i dent i f y a subst ant i al St at e i nt er est

- 11 -



- 12 - Nos. 98- 100

and/ or t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y di d not suppor t t he St at e' s r eason

f or enact i ng i t ( see PBA I , 89 NY2d at 392 [ r evi ewi ng l egi sl at i ve

hi st or y onl y af t er r ecogni zi ng t hat t he l egi sl at i on f ai l ed t o"expr essl y i dent i f y any St at e concer n mot i vat i ng i t s enact ment , "

and concl udi ng t hat t he st at ut e bor e no r easonabl e r el at i onshi p

t o t he St at e concer n asser t ed dur i ng l i t i gat i on] ; Mat t er of

Osbor ne v Cohen, 272 NY 55, 59 [ 1936] [ f i ndi ng "no f oundat i on i n

t he r ecor d" t hat t he est abl i shment and cont r ol of f i r e

depar t ment s ar e mat t er s of St at e concer n] ) .

We concl ude that t he HAI L Act addr esses a mat t er of

subst ant i al St at e concer n. Thi s i s not a pur el y l ocal i ssue.

Mi l l i ons of peopl e f r om wi t hi n and wi t hout t he St at e vi si t t he

Ci t y annual l y. Some of t hese vi si t or s ar e di sabl ed, and wi l l

undoubt abl y benef i t f r om t he i ncrease i n accessi bl e vehi cl es i n

t he Manhat t an cent r al busi ness di st r i ct and i n t he out er

bor oughs. The Act i s f or t he benef i t of al l New Yor ker s, and not

mer el y t hose r esi di ng wi t hi n t he Ci t y. Ef f i ci ent t r anspor t at i on

ser vi ces i n t he St at e' s l ar gest Ci t y and i nt er nat i onal cent er of

commer ce i s i mpor t ant t o t he ent i r e St at e. The Act pl ai nl y

f ur t her s al l of t hese si gni f i cant goal s.

Sect i on one of t he Act expl ai ns " t hat t he publ i c

heal t h, saf et y and wel f ar e of t he r esi dent s of t he st at e of New

York t r avel i ng t o, f r om and wi t hi n t he ci t y of New Yor k i s a

subst ant i al st at e concer n, i ncl udi ng access t o saf e and r el i abl e

mass t r anspor t at i on such as t axi cabs" ( HAI L Act § 1 [ emphasi s

- 12 -



- 13 - Nos. 98- 100

suppl i ed] ) . The Act i s ai med at accommodat i ng abl e- bodi ed and

di sabl ed r esi dent s and non- r esi dent s of t he Ci t y who "do not

cur r ent l y have suf f i ci ent access t o l egal , l i censed t axi cabsavai l abl e f or s tr eet hai l s . " Speci f i cal l y as i t r el at es t o

r esi dent s and non- r esi dent s wi t h di sabi l i t i es, t he l egi sl at ur e

concl uded t hat onl y 1. 8% of yel l ow cabs are accessi bl e, and t hat

an even smal l er per cent age of t he appr oxi mat el y 23, 000 l i ver y

vehi cl es ar e so equi pped. The l ack of accessi bl e yel l ow cabs and

l i ver y vehi cl es i mpact s r esi dent s and non- r esi dent s by

"i nhi bi t [ i ng] t hei r dai l y acti vi t i es" and pr event i ng t hem "f r om

bei ng abl e t o r el y on t he st r eet hai l syst em t o get t o a

dest i nat i on qui ckl y, par t i cul ar l y i n an emer gency, or t o t r avel

t o a l ocat i on not near a subway or bus st op. " Thus, i t cannot be

sai d t hat t he l egi sl at ur e has of f er ed onl y "specul at i ve

asser t i ons" concer ni ng t he "possi bl e St at e- wi de i mpl i cat i ons of

t he subj ect mat t er " ( PBA I , 89 NY2d at 391) .

Pl ai nt i f f s f i nd s i gni f i cance i n t he f act t hat i n t he

year s bet ween 1996 and 2008 when t he New Yor k St at e Legi sl at ure

appr oved t he i ssuance of 1, 450 new medal l i ons, i t di d so onl y

af t er t he Ci t y Counci l i ssued a home rul e message request i ng such

an i ncr ease. However , t he f act t hat t he l egi sl at ur e has

pr evi ousl y ent er t ai ned home r ul e messages i n t hi s f i el d " i s not

determi nat i ve of t he i ssue bef ore us – whether such messages were

const i t ut i onal l y r equi r ed" ( Ci t y of New Yor k, 94 NY2d at 591

[ ci t at i on omi t t ed] ) . I ndeed, t hat t he Ci t y Counci l must make a

- 13 -



- 14 - Nos. 98- 100

r equest t o t he l egi sl at ur e i n or der t o i ssue and sel l new

medal l i ons at a mar ket r at e onl y under scores t hat t he St at e has

an i nt er est i n t he r egul at i on yel l ow cab ser vi ces.As i t s sponsor expl ai ned, t he Act ' s pur pose i s t o

"al l ow t he Ci t y t o i mpl ement a t axi pl an t hat wi l l mor e

ef f ect i vel y ser vi ce al l f i ve bor oughs of New Yor k Ci t y and

gr eat l y i ncrease t he avai l abi l i t y of accessi bl e t axi cabs and

f or - hi r e vehi cl es" ( Sponsor ' s Mem, Bi l l J acket , L 2012, ch 9) .

The i ssues t he Act addresses ar e t he l ack of yel l ow cabs wi t hi n

t he Manhat t an cent r al busi ness di st r i ct t hat ar e accessi bl e t o

t he di sabl ed and t he gener al shor t age of avai l abl e yel l ow cab and

l i ver y vehi cl e t r anspor t at i on i n under ser ved ar eas of t he ci t y,

i . e. , out si de Manhat t an' s cent r al busi ness di st r i ct and t he t wo

ai r por t s.

Pl ai nt i f f s next asser t t hat t he st at ed r easons f or t he

Act ' s enact ment must be vi ewed skept i cal l y because i t was not

enacted unt i l af t er negot i at i ons broke down between t he Mayor and

Ci t y Counci l concer ni ng t he i ncr ease i n t axi cab and l i ver y

vehi cl e ser vi ce i n t he underser ved areas. However , we need not

specul at e on t he l egi sl at ur e' s mot i ves "as a j udi ci al const r uct

f or st at ut or y anal ysi s" and, i nst ead, must di r ect our at t ent i on

t o whet her t he l egi sl at ur e act ed wi t hi n i t s const i t ut i onal

pur vi ew i n passi ng t he l egi sl at i on ( Ci t y of New Yor k, 94 NY2d at

591) . To t hat end, we concl ude t hat t he Act addr esses a

subst ant i al St at e i nt er est .

- 14 -



- 15 - Nos. 98- 100

That does not end t he i nqui r y, however , because i n

or der t o be uphel d as const i t ut i onal , t he Act must "bear a

r easonabl e r el at i onshi p" t o t hat St at e concer n ( PBA I , 89 NY2d at391) . As we expl ai n i n Empi r e St at e Chapt er of Assoc. Bui l der s,

( ___ NY3d ___ ) , t hi s r equi r ement ser ves t o est abl i sh t hat t he

l egi sl at i on does i n f act advance t he asser t ed st at e i nt er est ,

i . e. t hat t he st at e i nt er est i s bona f i de, not mer el y pr et ext ual

( see PBA I at 393) . We concl ude t hat a r easonabl e r el at i onshi p

exi st s. The Act consi st s of a ser i es of i nt er l ocki ng pr ovi si ons

t o addr ess i t s st at ed pur poses. The pot ent i al i ssuance of 18, 000

HAI L l i censes, di sper sed i n equal amount s over t hr ee year s, wi l l

al l ow l i ver y vehi cl es t o l egal l y accept st r eet hai l s f r om

r esi dent s and non- r esi dent s i n t he out er bor oughs and i n

Manhat t an out si de i t s cent r al busi ness di st r i ct . That 20% of t he

f i r st 6, 000 HAI L l i censes must be ear mar ked f or accessi bl e

vehi cl es advances t he St at e i nt er est i n pr ovi di ng st r eet hai l

vehi cl es i n t hose ar eas f or r esi dent s and vi si t or s wi t h

di sabi l i t i es. To ensur e t hat t he mar ket does not become

sat ur at ed, t he Act gi ves t he TLC t he aut hor i t y t o i ssue an

addi t i onal 12, 000 HAI L l i censes once i t conduct s a mar ket

anal ysi s t o det er mi ne whet her t he i ssuance of addi t i onal HAI L

l i censes i s necessar y. Fur t her i ng t he l egi sl at ur e' s goal s, t he

Act al so al l ows HAI L l i censees t o appl y f or gr ant s t hat wi l l

enabl e t hem t o ei t her pur chase accessi bl e vehi cl es or r et r of i t

exi st i ng vehi cl es t o meet t he accessi bi l i t y r equi r ement s.

- 15 -



- 16 - Nos. 98- 100

Addr essi ng t he l egi sl at i ve f i ndi ng concer ni ng t he l ack

of accessi bl e yel l ow cabs i n Manhat t an' s cent r al busi ness

di st r i ct , t he Act per mi t s t he Mayor t o "admi ni st r at i vel yaut hor i ze" t he TLC, an execut i ve br anch commi ssi on, t o publ i cl y

sel l up t o 2, 000 addi t i onal medal l i ons t hat ar e r est r i ct ed t o

accessi bl e yel l ow cabs oper at i ng wi t hi n zones where HAI L

l i censees ar e pr ohi bi t ed f r om accept i ng st r eet hai l s. Onl y 400

of t hese medal l i ons may be i ssued i ni t i al l y, wi t h t he r emai nder

bei ng i ssued onl y af t er t he New Yor k St ate Depart ment of

Tr anspor t at i on approves t he Di sabl ed Access i bi l i t y Pl an as set

f or t h i n sect i on 10 of t he Act . Const r ued t oget her , t he Act ' s

pr ovi si ons bear a r easonabl e r el at i onshi p t o a subst ant i al St at e

i nt er est.

Pl ai nt i f f s asser t t hat t he Act does not sat i sf y t he

"r easonabl e r el at i onshi p" pr ong, cl ai mi ng t hat i t "evi scer at es"

t he Ci t y' s separ at i on of power s by t r ansf er r i ng t o t he Mayor t he

aut hor i t y t o i ssue up t o 2, 000 new medal l i ons, and i nt r udes upon

t he Ci t y' s budget i ng aut hor i t y to t he ext ent t hat al l ows t he TLC

t o awar d $54 mi l l i on i n gr ant s t o HAI L l i censees wi t hout gi vi ng

t he Ci t y Counci l any i nput as t o how much money shoul d be

appr opr i ated. Al t hough i t r emai ns an open quest i on whether our

home rul e anal ysi s r equi r es us t o f i nd each i ndi vi dual pi ece of

l egi sl at i on sat i sf i es a subst ant i al St at e i nt er est , we addr ess

pl ai nt i f f s' ar gument s i ndi vi dual l y her e because t he "poi son pi l l "

pr ovi si on cont ai ned i n sect i on 6 of t he Act pr ovi des t hat i f one

- 16 -



- 17 - Nos. 98- 100

pr ovi si on f ai l s, t he ent i r e Act must f ai l .

Sect i on 8 of t he Act does not " t r ansf er " any of t he

Ci t y Counci l ' s power s t o t he Mayor . Rat her , i t al l ows t he Mayort o "admi ni st r at i vel y aut hor i ze t he TLC" t o i ssue "by publ i c sal e"

up t o 2, 000 medal l i ons. Thi s i s mer el y an i mpl ement at i on devi ce

and i t does not encr oach on t he Ci t y Counci l ' s aut hor i t y under

sect i on 2303 ( b) ( 4) of t he New Yor k Ci t y Char t er t o i ssue

addi t i onal t axi cab l i censes. As t he gover ni ng body t hat passed

t hi s Act , i t was wi t hi n t he St at e l egi sl at ur e' s pur vi ew t o

del egat e a por t i on of t he Act ' s i mpl ement at i on t o t he Mayor ,

whose admi ni st r at i ve aut hor i zat i on of t he sal e of t he medal l i ons

advances a l egi t i mat e goal of t hi s l aw, by secur i ng accessi bl e

vehi cl es wher e t hey ar e needed most . Ther ef or e, sect i on 8 bear s

a r easonabl e r el at i onshi p t o t he subst ant i al St at e i nt er est of

i ncr easi ng t he suppl y of accessi bl e yel l ow cabs.

I t al so cannot be r easonabl y ar gued t hat sect i on 9' s

r equi r ement cal l i ng f or t he TLC' s est abl i shment of a gr ant

pr ogr am t o di st r i but e up t o $54 mi l l i on i n gr ant s f or t he

pur chase or r et r of i t t i ng of accessi bl e HAI L vehi cl es i nt er f er es

wi t h t he Ci t y Counci l ' s "power of t he pur se. " Fi r st , t he

r equi r ement f ur t her s t he subst ant i al St at e i nt er est i n pr ovi di ng

accessi bl e yel l ow cabs and l i ver y vehi cl es and bear s a r easonabl e

r el at i onshi p t o t hose goal s. Second, t he Act does not di r ect t he

Mayor t o i ncl ude these gr ant s i n t he TLC budget , nor does i t

di r ect t he Ci t y Counci l t o appr opr i at e f unds t o suppor t such

- 17 -



- 18 - Nos. 98- 100

gr ant s. Thi r d, t he Act pur por t s t o r ai se r evenue t hr ough t he

HAI L l i censi ng f ees and t he pot ent i al auct i oni ng of f of t he

medal l i ons, whi ch may pr esumabl y of f set t he up t o $54 mi l l i on i ngr ant money.

Nor does sect i on 23 of t he Act , whi ch r equi r es t hat

penal t i es f or vi ol at i ons of t he Act be "t r ansf er r ed t o t he ent i t y

t hat i ssued t he summons f or [ a HAI L vehi cl e] vi ol at i on, " i nt r ude

on t he ci t y' s f i nances, as pl ai nt i f f s suggest . Sect i on 23

pr ovi des, i n per t i nent par t , t hat "[ n] ot wi t hst andi ng t he

pr ovi si ons of any ot her l aw t o t he cont r ar y, t he New Yor k st at e

pol i ce may enf or ce any l aws, r ul es or r egul at i ons r el at ed t o

vehi cl es wi t h HAI L l i censes, " and r equi r es t hat t he commi ssi on or

t r i bunal adj udi cat i ng l i abi l i t y f or a vi ol at i on pay "t he money

owed and col l ected t o t he ent i t y that i ssued t he summons f or t he

vi ol at i on. " Accor di ng t o t he New Yor k Ci t y Char t er , however ,

Ci t y revenues and t hose of t he New Yor k Ci t y Pol i ce Depar t ment

t hat ar e "not r equi r ed by l aw t o be pai d i nt o any ot her f und or

account shal l be pai d i nt o . . . t he ' gener al f und' " ( NY Ci t y

Char t er § 109) . I n ot her wor ds, t he Ci t y mai nt ai ns cont r ol over

t he f unds der i ved f r om i t s l aw enf or cement ent i t i es t hat enf or ce

t he Act , whi l e the New Yor k St at e Pol i ce r ecei ve moni es f or t he

summonses t hey i ssue.

Pl ai nl y, not onl y does t he Act , i ncl udi ng i t s

chal l enged pr ovi si ons, addr ess subst ant i al St at e concer ns, but i t

al so "bear [ s] a r easonabl e r el at i onshi p" t o t hose concer ns.

- 18 -



- 19 - Nos. 98- 100

Ther ef or e, Supreme Cour t er r ed i n concl udi ng t hat t he Act

vi ol ates t he Muni ci pal Home Rul e Cl ause.

V.Cer t ai n pl ai nt i f f s asser t t hat t he HAI L Act vi ol at es

t he "Doubl e Enact ment Cl ause, " whi ch st at es t hat , wi t h cer t ai n

except i ons, t he l egi sl at ur e:

"Shal l enact , and may f r om t i me to t i meamend, a st atut e of l ocal government sgr ant i ng t o l ocal government s powersi ncl udi ng but not l i mi t ed t o t hose of l ocall egi sl at i on and admi ni st r at i on i n addi t i on t o

t he power s vest ed i n t hem by t hi s ar t i cl e. Apower gr ant ed i n such st atut e may ber epeal ed, di mi ni shed, i mpai r ed or suspendedonl y by enactment of a st atut e by t hel egi sl at ur e wi t h t he appr oval of t he gover norat i t s r egul ar sessi on i n one cal endar yearand t he re- enact ment and appr oval of suchst at ut e i n t he f ol l owi ng year " ( NY Const , ar tI X, § 2 [ b] [ 1] ) .

The Doubl e Enact ment Cl ause "was i ntended t o af f or d l ocal i t i es

pr ot ect i on f r om hast y and i l l - consi der ed l egi sl at i ve j udgment s"

but "was not . . . desi gned as a r i gi d i mpenet r abl e bar r i er t o

or di nar y l egi sl at i ve enact ment s i n mat t er s of St at e concer n"

( Wombat Real t y Corp. v St at e of New Yor k, 41 NY2d 490, 491- 492

[ 1977] ) .

I t has not been demonst r ated t hat t he Act " r epeal ed,

di mi ni shed, i mpai r ed or suspended" any power i n "a st atut e of

l ocal gover nment s. " The Doubl e Enact ment Cl ause i s no more

exact i ng on t he l i mi t s of St ate power as t he Home Rul e Cl ause,

and, because we concl ude that t he Act addr esses a subst ant i al

St at e concer n, pl ai nt i f f s' Doubl e Enact ment Cl ause ar gument

- 19 -



- 20 - Nos. 98- 100

necessar i l y f ai l s .

VI .

Fi nal l y, cer t ai n pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he HAI L Actvi ol at es t he Excl usi ve Pr i vi l eges Cl ause. That cl ause pr ovi des

t hat "[ t ] he l egi sl at ur e shal l not pass a pr i vat e or l ocal bi l l .

. . [ g] r ant i ng t o any pr i vat e cor por at i on, associ at i on or

i ndi vi dual any excl usi ve pr i vi l ege, i mmuni t y or f r anchi se

what ever " ( NY Const , ar t I I I , § 17) . The Excl usi ve Pr i vi l eges

Cl ause, whi ch t ar get s monopol i es, may onl y be vi ol at ed i f t he

"pr i vat e or l ocal bi l l " i s "di r ect ed at a s i ngl e ent i t y" and i t

conf er s "a pr i vi l ege upon t he si ngl e ent i t y t o t he excl usi on of

al l ot her s" ( Consumer s Uni on of U. S. , I nc. v St at e of New Yor k, 5

NY3d 327, 360- 361, n 27 [ 2005] ) .

Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m t hat t he Act gr ant s excl usi ve

pr i vi l eges t o t he l i ver y i ndust r y at t he expense of al l ot her s,

i ncl udi ng t he yel l ow cab i ndust r y, because i t pr ohi bi t s member s

of t he yel l ow cab i ndust r y, or member s of t he gener al publ i c,

f r om obt ai ni ng a HAI L l i cense. Accor di ng t o pl ai nt i f f s, because

t he HAI L Act aut hor i zes t he i ssuance of up t o 18, 000 l i censes and

al l ows onl y t he cur r ent l i ver y i ndust r y member s t o pur chase t hem,

i t gr ant s an excl usi ve pr i vi l ege t o t hose member s. We di sagr ee.

The l i censi ng provi si ons appl y t o a cl ass consi st i ng of

cl ose t o 60, 000 l i ver y vehi cl e dr i ver s and owner s. To be sur e,

t he Act pr ovi des t hat "[ w] i t hi n t he f i r st t hr ee year s of t he

f i r st i ssuance, HAI L l i censes may be i ssued onl y t o owner s of

- 20 -



- 21 - Nos. 98- 100

f or - hi r e vehi cl es or f or - hi r e dr i ver s who have been l i censed by

t he TLC f or at l east one year and ar e i n good st andi ng wi t h t he

TLC" ( HAI L Act § 5 [ b] ) , but t hat does not l i mi t t he number of peopl e who may obt ai n one. I ndeed, i n or der t o qual i f y, al l one

needs t o do i s obt ai n a TLC l i cense, oper at e a l i ver y vehi cl e f or

one year and mai nt ai n good st andi ng wi t h t he TLC. Thus, t he

number of per sons who ar e abl e t o obt ai n HAI L l i censes wi l l

l i kel y var y over t i me. Thi s i s not t he t ype of "excl usi vi t y"

t hat t he cl ause was meant t o pr ohi bi t .

Accor di ngl y, i n al l t hr ee appeal s, t he j udgment of

Supr eme Cour t , i nsof ar as appeal ed f r om, shoul d be rever sed, wi t h

cost s, and j udgment shoul d be gr ant ed to def endant s decl ar i ng

t hat chapter 602 of t he l aws of 2011, as amended by chapt er 9 of

t he Laws of 2012, i s const i t ut i onal .

- 21 -



- 22 - Nos. 98- 100

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

For Each Case: J udgment , i nsof ar as appeal ed f r om, r ever sed, wi t hcost s, and j udgment gr ant ed t o def endant s decl ar i ng t hat Chapt er

602 of t he Laws of 2011, as amended by Chapter 9 of t he Laws of 2012, i s const i t ut i onal . Opi ni on by J udge Pi got t . Chi ef J udgeLi ppman and J udges Gr af f eo, Read, Smi t h and Ri ver a concur . J udgeAbdus- Sal aam t ook no par t .

Deci ded J une 6, 2013

- 22 -

yellow cabs vs new york city

Documents