Opinion
November 9, 1959
Irwin M. Katz for petitioner.
Charles H. Tenney, Corporation Counsel ( Rose Schneph and John J. Halpin of counsel), for respondent.
This motion is denied. The court is unable to hold that the respondent's refusal to issue a hack driver's license to petitioner, whose criminal record includes a felony conviction, was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious ( Matter of Baldi v. Gilchrist, 204 App. Div. 425; Matter of Greenberg v. Monaghan, 284 App. Div. 944; Matter of Loeb v. Adams, 1 A.D.2d 662, affd. 1 N.Y.2d 894). In Matter of Loeb v. Adams ( supra) the Commissioner was upheld in his refusal, even though the convictions were only for misdemeanors, notwithstanding the fact that the statute requires an applicant for a license to list only felony convictions. The case of Matter of Barton Trucking Corp. v. O'Connell ( 7 A.D.2d 36) cited by petitioner, involved a cartman's license. The court pointed out that the purpose of licensing cartmen was only identification, revenue and control of their fees. A different situation is presented in the case of licensing a taxicab driver, because of the possible dangers to the public from riding in cabs driven by criminals. The taxicab industry is affected with a public interest. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals has granted leave to appeal in the Barton case ( supra) and such appeal is now pending. The fact that petitioner's convictions occurred a long time ago does not, in itself, have the effect of making the refusal of a license arbitrary or capricious, in view of the dangers to the public to be apprehended from permitting excriminals to drive taxicabs. A different situation is presented in the case of cartmen. The provisions of section 242 Exec. of the Executive Law do not require a different determination. That section expressly provides that nothing therein contained shall prevent a licensing board from refusing a license to a person to whom a certificate of good conduct shall have been granted pursuant to that section.