Samuel H. Sloan, Petitioner
For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78
Supplemental Affidavit
-against-
INDEX NO. 123003/2001
New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission,
Respondent
_________________________________________________
Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. This is an affidavit in furtherance of my motion to hold the TLC in contempt. At the last court date, this court adjourned the case for six weeks to give the TLC more time to proceed with the hearing they said that they were going to conduct concerning my application for a HACK license. Presumably, the six weeks was to give the TLC enough time to schedule the hearing, to conduct the hearing, and to render a decision which would be reviewable by this court.
2. I wish to inform this court that in the intervening six weeks, nothing has happened. The TLC has not held or even scheduled a hearing. Needless to say, no decision has been made.
3. I wish to remind this court that I made my application for a Hack license on April 30, 2001. I passed the test on May 17, 2001 and I was supposed to receive my license on May 25, 2001. Instead, the TLC scheduled a licensing standards hearing for June 26, 2001 (exactly one year ago today). I did not receive the decision until August 25, 2001. I subsequently filed an Article 78 Proceeding with the result that the decision dated August 25 was vacated, by a decision of this court dated February 27, 2002.
4. Everybody I know of familiar with the decision of this court (which was published in the New York Law Journal) agrees that the decision of this court requires the TLC to issue to me a HACK license. However, the TLC has refused to obey the order of this court. The six weeks adjournment was to give the TLC more time to obey the order of this court.
5. It is clear from all of my conversations with TLC attorneys, including Kristine Holden, the TLC attorney on this case, that they regard the decision of this court dated February 27, 2002 as a legal nullity and that this court does not have the authority to require them to issue a TLC license. It is clear that the TLC has no intention of ever issuing to me a HACK license. A total of fourteen months have passed since I applied for reinstatement of my license in April 30, 2001. Nothing has transpired. No hearing has been conducted or even scheduled.
6. I believe that it is now the duty of this court to prove them wrong and to order that the license be issued and to hold them in contempt and to put them in jail. Nothing less than that will have any meaning to them.
7. There have been other developments, however. Today, I received a letter dated June 24, 2002 notifying me that they have scheduled a hearing to revoke my FHV License. This is the Limo license which the TLC has already three times suspended and has been three times reinstated by this court, each time for the same reason, which is that the TLC acted without a hearing. A copy of the June 24 letter, which I just picked up from the post office, is enclosed. Note that they waited until just two days before the next scheduled hearing before this court to mail it. However, one of the stated grounds has already been declared invalid by this court. That is part 1 where they state that I answered question 18 incorrectly. The court already dealt with that question and the TLC did not appeal. The court stated in its decision of February 27:
"Question no. 18 on petitioner's application asks "has any license issued to you been suspended or revoked?" (Respondent's Exh. O, at 2). Petitioner truthfully placed a mark next to the word "no." This answer was unobjectionable."
8. Regarding Part 2, this almost certainly refers to the child custody proceedings regarding my kidnapped daughter, Shamema. I have submitted documents to this court proving that I had legal custody of my daughter in New York State where my daughter was born and therefore under the Uniform Child Custody Act Virginia had no jurisdiction to entertain custody proceedings regarding my daughter.
9. But that is not all. Also before this court is my FOIL request. The TLC finally complied with my request one week ago. I received in on Saturday, June 15. The top item in the packet is my notice of appeal from the $280 fine which started this entire proceeding. There is a time stamp on the notice of appeal which clearly states: "RECEIVED TAXI & LIMO COMM. LEGAL DEPARTMENT 2001 JUL -5 P 5:03 "
10. Remember that the TLC stated in its pleadings before this court that I had never filed a notice of appeal. We now know that this was a lie. It cannot be passed off as a mere mistake, because of the pervasive pattern of lies by the TLC throughout this case and indeed in many other cases. Indeed, the TLC has a reputation for lying all the time. Everybody familiar with the TLC will confirm this.
11. Had the TLC complied with my FOIL request back in October 2001 when I filed it, many of these court proceedings would have been unnecessary because the documents in their own files prove that many of their statements were untrue.
12. Even more incredibly, I received a letter from Peter M. Mazer, General Counsel of the TLC. You would think that an important person like a general counsel would make a minimal effort to tell the truth. However, instead, he lies repeatedly, and obviously so. The letter states:
"Your appeal was decided by an Appellate ALJ on July 24, 2001 and mailed to the address on file with the Commission. Since you changed your address last year, you may not have received this decision. A copy of the decision of your appeal affirming the decision of ALJ Manzione is enclosed."
13. This is clearly a lie. The record shows that the decision dated July 24, 2001 was mailed to 24 Sixth Avenue, Brooklyn NY, which was a non-existent address. That address was not on file with the Commission. The Notice of Appeal, which I have just included, clearly gives my address as 1234 St. Marks Avenue, Brooklyn NY 11213. I never moved from that address during the period in question. I lived there from June 26, 2001 until October, 2001, when I moved to my current address.
14. More than that, the grounds for my appeal was that my address was not 24 Sixth Avenue, the address to which the summons was mailed, and therefore I could not have received the summons. Did they bother to read my appeal? The decision states: "The findings of the AJL are based on a determination of credibility and are supported by substantial evidence." I would like to know what law school she graduated from. It is hornbook law that determinations of credibility are only made when there is a hearing involving the live testimony of witnesses. There was no such hearing in this case. I submitted my motion on papers. I wanted a hearing, but this was denied. Furthermore, the records of the TLC show that I was never at 24 Sixth Avenue, the address to which the summons was mailed, at any time during the period 1999-2002 and therefore could not possibly have received the summons, nor was 5061483 ever my TLC License number.
15. Another lie in the letter by Peter M. Mazer was that the decision affirming the decision of ALJ Manzione was enclosed. In fact, it was not enclosed. The envelope contained nothing more than the letter.
16. However, Kristine Holden, attorney for the TLC, did subsequently serve me with the decision of Cathryn A. Cohen, which means that I must now start a new Article 78 Proceeding to overturn it. However, this court has already ruled that that decision is invalid. Thus it is "the law of the case" that the decision of ALJ Manzione was wrong and therefore the decision of ALJ Cathryn A. Cohen was also wrong. Nevertheless, I must now pay new filing fees of $235 and go to a hearing just to overturn a $280 fine. I believe that it constitutes an ethical violation for Kristine Holden to serve me with a decision which she knows to be invalid.
17. In summary, throughout this proceeding, the TLC has shown contempt for the entire judicial process and for the law. I need to emphasize once again that my case is not unique. The TLC does this all the time. They are nothing more than a gang of criminals. They have stolen by their methods millions of dollars from taxi drivers. More than ten thousand taxi drives have had their licenses suspended or revoked in the past three years, as result of which many taxi drivers have lost not merely their licenses and their medallions but also their homes which were mortgaged to pay for their medallions plus their wives and their children. Therefore, it is highly appropriate for this court to put the officials of the TLC in jail.
18. I should be awarded money damages for this case. At the last court hearing, this court observed that money damages are appropriate in an Article 78 proceeding under some circumstances. I believe that this case falls within those circumstances.
Respectfully Submitted,
Samuel H. Sloan
Sworn to before me this 26th
Day of June, 2002
______________________ NOTARY PUBLIC
.