An affidavit to inform the court of new developments


Samuel H. Sloan,

For a Judgment Pursuant to
CPLR Article 78

Further Affidavit
INDEX NO. 123003/2001

New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission,


Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. This is an affidavit to inform the court of new developments is the proceedings before the TLC. This affidavit will demonstrate that the TLC has continued to flout and ignore the orders of this court and has no intention of ever complying with either the rulings of this court or its own rules or with the principles of fundamental due process of law.

2. Under pressure from this court, the TLC has held two so-called hearings. I say "so-called" because at one, the ALJ, Randy Kandel, herself said that it was not a hearing but merely an interview, that a tape recording would be made of the interview, that she would make recommendations to an Assistant Commissioner of the TLC, and that the ALJ would not make any decision on the case and has no authority to do so.

3. ALJ Kandel was so extremely hostile me that there is no doubt whatever of what the outcome of her "interview" with me will be. In her interview, which lasted only about 25 minutes, she ignored all norms and procedures which judges follow in conducting hearings. For example, there was no statement or reading of any charges, no witnesses and, in short, all of the violations which this court found were committed in the last hearing before ALJ Greaves were also committed by ALJ Kandel.

4. ALJ Kandel kept referring to a sheet of paper which was at her elbow. This piece of paper was not shown to me and was not marked as an exhibit or authenticated or offered into evidence. Looking from a distance upside down, it appeared to be the same piece of paper as was shown to this court by the attorney representing the TLC at the last hearing. This court has already seen that item and observed that it proves nothing. My main point here is that at a hearing, even an informal hearing, any document should be marked and identified and shown to the parties. This was not done.

5. Repeatedly, ALJ Kandel would ask me what I had to say about a subject. However, when I started to say something, she would interrupt and say that that was irrelevant. Thus, I was not allowed to present any of my points.

6. At the other hearing, exactly the opposite occurred. This was before ALJ J. R. Schneider and took place on July 12, 2002. This hearing, which this time was identified as a formal hearing rather than a mere interview, had a prosecutor, Mark Hardekopf. The hearing lasted five hours, as opposed to an "interview" of about 25 minutes before ALJ Kandel. I enclose a copy of the tentative decision by ALJ Schneider, which I have just received in the mail.

7. Most importantly, neither of there hearings were conducted before an ALJ from OATH. It is to be recalled that the excuse given to this court as to the long delay between the decision dated February 27, 2002 and any hearing was the need to secure an ALJ from OATH. They obviously now realize that an OATH ALJ will observe due process of law and will rule in my favor and so they have put on their own TLC ALJs which they can control.

8. At that hearing, Marc Hardekopf testified that he called Virginia 25 times if an effort to obtain information about any criminal record I might have, and that he was able to receive no information. He said that finally, after I signed a release form, he was able to get the one sheet of information. However, in so testifying, Mr. Hardekopf proved that I do not have a criminal record in Virginia, because a criminal record is a public record. There would be no need to ask me to sign a release form if I had a criminal record. The fact that he called Virginia 25 times long distance shows the lengths the TLC is going at taxpayers expense to deny me my HACK license.

9. More than that, Mark Hardekopf stated at the hearing before ALJ Schneider that "if necessary" he has another charge he is going to bring against me. What he meant by "if necessary" was that if I should happen to win at the two hearings just held, in spite of the deck being stacked against me, that he will bring yet another proceeding and then another and so on forever, always denying me my Hack license, which this court seems to be allowing by not in my view enforcing its original order dated February 27, 2001.

10. Therefore, I again request that this court hold the TLC in contempt and order the TLC to issue me my HACK license.

Respectfully Submitted,

Samuel H. Sloan

Sworn to before me this 5th
Day of August, 2002


UPDATE: This decision has been published in the New York Law Journal under Decisions of Interest". Here is the full text of the decision as published in the New York Law Journal.


Here are links:
My Home Page

Contact address - please send e-mail to the following address: