Second Ave. Sagas

Inside the travails of fighting an MTA summons

Written by

Benjamin Kabak

in

,

Remember the tale from last week of Aaron Goldberg? He was the man ticketed on a Select Bus Service bus because he had no proof of payment due to the MTA’s faulty equipment. Today, NY1 has a follow up, and Goldberg’s tale, at the least, has a happy ending: His ticket was dismissed.

However, Goldberg is just one in a sea of people battling the Transit Adjudication Bureau, and as NY1 notes in its report, others were not so lucky. Goldberg had a TV news station on its side, but others went to their TAB hearings only to find out they had to produce even more evidence. To make matters worse, the evidence is usually available only from the MTA, the organization prosecuting these people in the first place. “I am going to have to wait for them to send another appointment in the mail. Then they’re going to give me the paperwork to send to transit, which is going to take me a month to get. It’s frustrating,” Sharone Lott, another summons victim, said.

NY1 also spoke with civil liberties attorneys who echoed what I’ve heard before: There are serious doubts about the legalities of the TAB. From evidentiary standards to open access to the timeliness of the procedure, lawyers are working to create a more balanced adjudication process that better fits the U.S. judicial system. “Don’t get a summons, because you don’t want to be going down to that place, because once you go down there, you’re probably not going to understand what’s going on,” Chris Dunn, associate legal director of the NYCLU, said. “The deck is going to be stacked against you, and it’s just a very dark and mysterious process.”

Comments

7 responses to “Inside the travails of fighting an MTA summons”

  1. BrooklynBus

    I once had a parking ticket that involved a dispute about a parking sign. Someone told me to write to DOTs Borough Engineer to obtain proof crucial to prove my innocence. I received the proof in seven days and was able to schedule a hearing within the required timeframe and because of that evidence was found Not Guilty. That’s how it supposed to work.

    There is no reason why Ms. Lott should have to go down a second time and also have to wait a month for the MTA to respond. What is to prevent the MTA from denying the machines were out of order? If they receive a thousand requests for investigation, it’s much easier for them to deny them all then to investigate each one, especially when it is in their financial interest to do so. The process leaves a lot to be desired.

    Reply
  2. Al D

    “There are serious doubts about the legalities of the TAB. From evidentiary standards to open access to the timeliness of the procedure, lawyers are working to create a more balanced adjudication process that better fits the U.S. judicial system.”

    So then, is TAB even legal? Can it apply the law? Sounds from this quote that it has no legal standing.

    Reply
    1. AK

      There are plenty of non-Article III administrative tribunals that have “adjudicative”/quasi-judicial authority (Social Security is the largest example– unemployment insurance is another massive administrative mechanism).

      The issue is not whether TAB can exist outside the criminal court (it can), but rather whether TAB complies with the relevant portions of the Constitution that apply to such proceedings. That is why the NYCLU sued to open the proceedings to the public under the 1st Amendment and secured the provision of translators for all people at TAB under the Due Process clause/Title VI.

      TAB will never be a joy for respondents– you got a summons for breaking the law after all– but certainly the MTA can do more to make the process more transparent and easier to navigate for respondents. I think we are moving in the right direction.

      Reply
  3. Scott E

    What is the penalty for not paying a Transit fine? If it isn’t resolved in TAB, does it get escalated to city court (where due-process may occur)? Can they really do anything other than send threatening letters? After all, it’s not a true court of law, so their enforcement options would be limited to, I assume, filing a Trespassing charge and forbidding you from setting foot on their property again — which the MTA has no little ability to enforce.

    Reply
    1. BrooklynBus

      I’m not sure about this, but I think they can deduct the amount owed from your paycheck if you work for the city or state government after a certain time has passed after you were found guilty and didn’t pay up.

      Reply
    2. AK

      The fines imposed at TAB are the equivalent of civil judgments, meaning that TAB can, with the aid of the civil court, enforce them in a number of ways (in the manner suggested by BrooklynBus, but also by potentially garnishing wages/SS benefits/etc.). This is the relevant language from the rules:

      “Any final order of the bureau imposing a civil penalty, whether the adjudication was had by hearing or upon default or otherwise, shall constitute a judgment rendered by the bureau which may be entered in the civil court of the city of New York or any other place provided for the entry of civil judgments within the state, and, provided that no proceeding for judicial review shall then be pending, may be enforced without court proceedings in the same manner as the enforcement of money judgments entered in civil actions.”

      Reply
  4. Ed

    The adjudication “process” is made just difficult enough, and the fines just low enough, so that for most people if they get a fine its not worthwhile to try to fight it.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts