On October 19, 2023, the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC), pursuant to its February 2023 License Review, began accepting applications for For-Hire Vehicle (FHV) Licenses from any qualifying person or entity who applied with an Electric Vehicle (EV). However, on November 2, 2023, the New York Taxi Workers Alliance (NYTWA) filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the TLC from issuing new EV FHV licenses. Pursuant to a court order obtained by NYTWA, TLC stopped accepting new EV FHV license applications on November 13, 2023.
In their lawsuit, the NYTWA argued that the TLC did not have the legal authority to unilaterally change the license plate cap rules and that a slew of new vehicles with TLC plates would saturate the market, hurting existing FHV drivers. NYTWA also argued that the TLC’s program would flood the market with drivers at a time when the number of available drivers significantly outpaces the demand for trips. The NYTWA also sought to nullify the TLC’s program.
The TLC, via the New York City Corporation Counsel’s Office, opposed the lawsuit. They first argued that NYTWA lacked standing to challenge the program. They also argued that the program’s enactment was a proper exercise of the TLC’s regulatory powers, which were not arbitrary or capricious.
On March 28, 2024, New York County Supreme Court Justice Nicholas Moyne issued a decision on the NYTWA lawsuit. The court held that NYTWA lacked standing and as such, the court need not address the underlying merits of the lawsuit. Most people don’t know what a lack of standing or the need for standing means, so I’ll do my best to explain it in lay terms: The threshold issue in every case is whether the plaintiff (or the petitioners in an Article 78 proceeding) has standing to assert the claims that they made in the lawsuit. Standing is a threshold requirement for any litigant seeking relief from the court. The plaintiff also has the burden of establishing both an injury in fact and that the asserted injury is within the zone of interest sought to be protected by the statute alleged to have been violated. In order to establish standing, the petitioners have to show an injury-in-fact, meaning they must demonstrate that they suffer actual harm as a result of the challenged actions. The injury must be concrete and definite, as opposed to speculative or based on conjecture about possible future events. Next, the injury must fall within the zone of interest or concern sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the agency has acted. Finally, the injury must be direct and immediate such that it cannot be prevented or significantly ameliorated by administrative action or by steps available to the public.
The court found that the NYTWA lacked standing because a claim based upon the number of drivers added to the road by virtue of the program is speculative at this juncture. Additionally, a competitive injury in and of itself does not confer standing to challenge an administrative determination. The court went on to find that while the increase may not be entirely negligible, it is far from a given that it would impact the market in any meaningful way. The Judge specifically stated that since many FHV permits have been previously surrendered to the TLC, it is more likely that the increase in drivers caused by participation in the program will be minimal. Furthermore, the NYTWA failed to allege that they submitted an application for inclusion in the TLC program or expressed any interest in participating in the program. Thus, the claimed harm is even more speculative or hypothetical.
So, what does all this mean? It means that the Court dismissed the NYTWA lawsuit without ever reaching the merits of the lawsuit. This may seem to be a dismissal based in a hyper technicality, but it is not. Standing is not about the actual issues of the case. Instead, it is about the parties to the lawsuit and where they “stand” in relation to each other. Courts treat standing as an “antecedent” to a lawsuit. In other words, a party must prove they have standing before the court will consider the merits of the case.
People frequently refer to it as a “technicality” or describe it as a “punt” when the Court dismisses a case for lack of standing. But standing is not a technicality – it’s one of the most important issues a court decides in a case. In other words, if someone lacks standing, the courthouse doors are closed to them. There are rules that determine when the doors are open and when they are shut. If the rules are too lax, courts will slip their constraints and act without authority. If the rules are too strict, people who need justice won’t be able to get it. It is a delicate balance.
The TLC’s program was designed to increase passenger demand in areas of the city that have historically been underserved by yellow taxis, including parts of Brooklyn, The Bronx, Queens, Staten Island, and north of East 96th and West 110th streets in Manhattan. The large number of applicants goes to show you how desperate FHV drivers are to have their own vehicles. Now, if the TLC chooses, they may move forward with their intended program. Whether they actually will proceed is an entirely different story.
