How to beat Alternate Side/street cleaning ticket in NY?

[kangarruu]

In case anyone was curious, the denied it.  As I expected.

Here:
You gotta like the way they threw in the legalese. "prima facie." 

Then they make you pay in advance if you want to appeal.  Last time I did that, they took my payment and didn't even bother responding to the appeal. 

I'll still appeal again, doesn't cost anything more than a stamp.  I'll point out that the ALJ used the wrong legal standard by asking whether my defense was supported by evidence instead of whether the summons is supported by evidence.

From DH (an attorney): The burden is preponderance of the evidence. The evidence is the sworn statement on the ticket stating that you parked illegally. "Prima facie" means that all elements of the offense alleged were set out. The ALJ is saying that you failed to rebut the sworn statement.

[henche]

From DH (an attorney): The burden is preponderance of the evidence. The evidence is the sworn statement on the ticket stating that you parked illegally. "Prima facie" means that all elements of the offense alleged were set out. The ALJ is saying that you failed to rebut the sworn statement.

Ask husband how you usually testify as to time.  That is, can you just say "gee, I say it is 1130, or do you need to say "I know it is 1030 because my watch said so and I looked at my watch"?

[joeb1]

Anyone have any experiance with bus lane tickets?

Bump

[AJK]

From DH (an attorney): The burden is preponderance of the evidence. The evidence is the sworn statement on the ticket stating that you parked illegally. "Prima facie" means that all elements of the offense alleged were set out. The ALJ is saying that you failed to rebut the sworn statement.

+1

The complaint in this case, the ticket, set forth the elements required to find you guilty of the violation.

You'd need to rebut the the the allegations set forth on the ticket with some form of admissible evidence as to what time it was at the time of the purported infraction.

Good luck with that.

Aside from submitting an affidavit to that effect (which I judge will discard without blinking), I'm not sure what else you may have...

[Joe4007]

http://www.vosizneias.com/169402/2014/06/30/0904-new-york-ny-bill-aimed-at-easing-alternate-side-parking-rules/

[AJK]

Good for citizens, but it'd mean the meter maids would have to drive right behind the cleaner.

[henche]

+1

The complaint in this case, the ticket, set forth the elements required to find you guilty of the violation.

You'd need to rebut the the the allegations set forth on the ticket with some form of admissible evidence as to what time it was at the time of the purported infraction.

Good luck with that.

Aside from submitting an affidavit to that effect (which I judge will discard without blinking), I'm not sure what else you may have...

Right, but my angle is that there also needs to be admissible evidence supporting elements. 

Now, most of the elements are supported by the agent's sworn statement.  So for example the fact that I was parked there, and that was my license plate number, and that is what the sign said. 

But what evidence supports what time it was?  Well, the same sworn statement.  But can a sworn statement really support facts such as the time?  Does the person attesting to it really have first hand knowledge of the time? How could they? Nobody ever "knows" the time first hand--at best you know what time it was according to a certain clock, or what time it was a short time earlier according to a certain clock. 

So shouldn't you need to testify as to your first hand knowledge--that is, that according to the agent's watch it was 1036?  Well, firstly, they didn't.  But more importantly, that is not a prima facie case, because the crime is to be parked there at 1036--not to be parked there at the time that the agent's watch says 1036!

So you should need to testify as to the entire "chain of custody" whereby you are able to make a prima facie case that it was in fact 1036.  But simply saying "it was 1036" shouldn't even be admissible.

[AJK]

It's cute, but I imagine--though could be completely wrong--that the meter maids are required to calibrate their time pieces pretty regularly.

Even more likely than that, I imagine that the actual ticket machine from whence came the source of your current annoyance actually serves a dual purpose: printing the ticket and... you guessed it, keeping the time. And that internal clock is likely either synced "live" or is calibrated daily. Again, your point is cute, and even a bit interesting, but your argument boils down to:

Does the meter maid have first-hand knowledge of the time such that he can attest to it in a sworn affidavit; i.e. the ticket. And the answer is: of course. Following that that line of reasoning, the meter maid also does not have first-hand knowledge of... his name (let's assume it's a "he").  He was told his name was "X" by his parents, his mohel, or even by a birth certificate. But that's all second-hand.

All that being said, I don't see why the "ticket machine" is any different than the records that must be kept by state troopers with respect to the calibration of their radar/laser guns. So, essentially, your rebuttal would be raising a question in the prima facie case by attacking the possible neglect or inaccuracies attendant with the calibration of the time piece.

On the one hand, I feel like they'll dismiss the argument out of hand, though, as I write, I fail to see the distinction between a radar/laser gun and a time-piece.

[henche]

It's cute, but I imagine--though could be completely wrong--that the meter maids are required to calibrate their time pieces pretty regularly.

Even more likely than that, I imagine that the actual ticket machine from whence came the source of your current annoyance actually serves a dual purpose: printing the ticket and... you guessed it, keeping the time. And that internal clock is likely either synced "live" or is calibrated daily. Again, your point is cute, and even a bit interesting, but your argument boils down to:

Does the meter maid have first-hand knowledge of the time such that he can attest to it in a sworn affidavit; i.e. the ticket. And the answer is: of course. Following that that line of reasoning, the meter maid also does not have first-hand knowledge of... his name (let's assume it's a "he").  He was told his name was "X" by his parents, his mohel, or even by a birth certificate. But that's all second-hand.

All that being said, I don't see why the "ticket machine" is any different than the records that must be kept by state troopers with respect to the calibration of their radar/laser guns. So, essentially, your rebuttal would be raising a question in the prima facie case by attacking the possible neglect or inaccuracies attendant with the calibration of the time piece.

On the one hand, I feel like they'll dismiss the argument out of hand, though, as I write, I fail to see the distinction between a radar/laser gun and a time-piece.

Ha gufa, I got the idea from the radar gun.  I want to see the records of when it was last calibrated, and how often it is calibrated, and how much it is off each time usually.  Plus, I want to know what it is calibrated against.

ETA: Anyone studying for the bar? Nu, how do you testify as to time?

[Nitantnel]

Excuse me please, but to normal people this sounds like pure cr*p.

[ilherman]

Excuse me please, but to normal people this sounds like pure cr*p.

Well, paying $115 for parking by a pump = cr*p as well.

[Emkay]

Excuse me please, but to normal people this sounds like pure cr*p.

to the contrary, I actually think that this shows true intellect

[Nitantnel]

to the contrary, I actually think that this shows true intellect

Are you also one of them?

[henche]

Excuse me please, but to normal people this sounds like pure cr*p.

Lemme translate it to normal person for you.

Dude says I broke the law. Dude says bec I parked there at 1036.

I want to know if he knew the time or was just estimating.  If he looked at his watch, was his watch accurate or a couple mins off.

That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. He says I broke the law, I want to know if he KNOWS that or if he ESTIMATES that.

[ayman]

Lol

[henche]

haha, I have a new argument.

See, I found another place in NY with the same street number, and no parking restriction.  So how can I get a ticket if no evidence which one I was at?

ETA: Am I allowed to raise new arguments on appeal from the ALJ?

[Emkay]

haha, I have a new argument.

See, I found another place in NY with the same street number, and no parking restriction.  So how can I get a ticket if no evidence which one I was at?

ETA: Am I allowed to raise new arguments on appeal from the ALJ?

I treat parking tickets like IHG brg's. Press your luck once then call it quits

[AJK]

haha, I have a new argument.

See, I found another place in NY with the same street number, and no parking restriction.  So how can I get a ticket if no evidence which one I was at?

ETA: Am I allowed to raise new arguments on appeal from the ALJ?

Aha, finally a good argument

'cept I'm no sure they'd allow you to use new arguments on appeal.

[henche]

Here are the rules http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/downloads/pdf/04pdf/parking_rules39.pdf

I call your attention to 39-12 on page 24.

It states

(2) The Appeals Board may review the facts and the law in any matter and, except in the interests of justice and upon consent of the respondent, shall not consider any evidence which was not presented to the hearing examiner. A concurring vote by two members of the Appeals Board panel shall be required to reverse or modify any decision  appealed from for error of fact or law, or to remand any matter in the interests of justice.

So the shaila is if this is new evidence.

I tayna it isn't.  I'm not bringing any new evidence--I'm just showing how the law and facts don't make me guilty. 

I guess one might argue that they will need to take judicial notice of the fact that there is another of this address, and that is new evidence.

But I tayna back that actually, they would need to look anyway at the maps to see if this address has a parking restriction, and can't at that time not notice that there is another of the same address.

I decided not to put this in the appeal, however, since I don't want to give them ideas.

I've also decided to leave out my first brilliant argument, even though I hold it is right.  I tried looking around to see how you are usually supposed to testify to time, but didn't find anything on google scholar, and I need a client code to access westlaw or lexis.  I figure I shouldn't complicate the argument, when my first one is golden. 

[bubkiz]

Good luck!
For best results, try to get it in before Chodesh Av.