Plaintiff, an armored transportation company transporting cash and currencies, appealed the New York City Office of Administrative Trials & Hearings [OATH] decision finding Plaintiff guilty of violating §24-163 Administrative Code of City of NY by reason of its employees allowing "the engine of a motor vehicle ... to idle" in violation of §24-163 which states that a "'processing device shall not include a heater or air conditioner operated for cabin comfort".
In the words of the Appellate Division, the question here is whether an armored truck while making a delivery is considered a "processing device."
The Court noted that:
1. The Plaintiff's employees "must keep the vehicle's engine running to keep its security system operative, to allow the vehicle to be moved instantly in the event of a robbery, and to ventilate the vehicle since its windows are sealed for security reasons";
2. Plaintiff had submitted evidence -- a screenshot from the New York City's Department of Environmental Protection' [DEP] website -- indicating that "armored trucks" are described as "an activity classified as process";
3. DEP had sent Plaintiff an email indicating that it's armored vehicles were not subject to the prohibition set out in §24-163; and
4. DEP had advised Plaintiff that DEP had a protocol in place indicating that in the event "the work being performed is directly related to the reason the vehicle is idling, the inspector is not to issue the violation."
Finding OATH's determination to be arbitrary and capricious, the Appellate Division granted Plaintiff's Article 78 petition, unanimously reversed OATH's decision, and annulled OATH's determination.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.