+1
& btwt that 5% chance of succeeding is overly generous
Perhaps. But it really is an outrage that you NYers put up with this. You have this tribunal that is supposed to review parking tickets, but does nothing but rubber stamp them.
Maybe my argument with them not putting the state and zip code was a bit loony, but this one is very good--how can they assess a ticket without knowing if I'm culpable under the law for giving permission to the driver? Is there some New York State caselaw that says the driver of a car is assumed to have implied permission unless the car is reported stolen?--unlikely.
And I have seen much better arguments simply rubber stamped, where the city really had nothing to stand on. For example I once saw where someone got an alternate side ticket for a time when alternate side was not in effect at that address. They wrote that in, and got back the stock answer that they were unconvincing and that the ticket had all the proper elements.
If that was happening in my city, we'd be grabbing our torches and pitchforks and "to the City Hall!"
ETA: So the statute is very long, and eventually says this:
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, no owner of a
vehicle shall be subject to a monetary fine imposed pursuant to this
section if the operator of such vehicle was operating such vehicle
without the consent of the owner at the time such operator operated such
vehicle in violation of subdivision (b), (c), (d), (f) or (g) of section
eleven hundred eighty of this article. For purposes of this subdivision
there shall be a presumption that the operator of such vehicle was
operating such vehicle with the consent of the owner at the time of such
operator operated such vehicle in violation of subdivision (b), (c),
(d), (f) or (g) of section eleven hundred eighty of this article.
I'm not even sure how to read this: so is that a rebuttable presumption at least? Or does it undermine the whole rule?