Plaintiff, an armored transportation company that carries and delivers cash and currencies, appealed the New York City Office of Administrative Trials & Hearings [OATH] decision finding it guilty of allowing its employees to keep "the engine of a motor vehicle ... idle ... 'loading or unloading' in violation of a rule"* and had imposed a $350 file.
The Appellate Division opined that the question here is whether an armored truck while making a delivery is considered a "processing device." Noting that when making a delivery "the crew members 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".
The Appellate Division also noted that Plaintiff had submitted evidence in the form of a screenshot from the New York City's Department of Environmental Protection' [DEP] website indicated that "armored trucks" are "an activity classified as process" and thus not subject to the prohibition set out in the rule in question.
In addition, Plaintiff submitted evidence that DEP had advised the Plaintiff that "there is no need to file [for] a variance, as [DEP had a] protocol in place to instruct the inspectors that if 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 and unanimously reversed OATH's decision, on the law, without costs, and annulled its determination.
* Administrative Code of City of NY §24-163, which provides that the term "'processing device" did not to include "a heater or air conditioner operated for [vehicle] cabin comfort".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.