to fight a parking ticket? (New York, Viola: insurance, crime, home)

[mrudnick]

Hello,

Last week, I approached my car and saw an orange parking violation envelope. I was confused because I did not think I parked illegally. I opened up the envelope and it was empty. There was nothing else on my windshield. I drive off thinking someone played a prank on me (anyone can put an envelope on a windshield).

I found out a week later that I did indeed get a parking ticket for parking too close to a fire hydrant. I take traffic laws very seriously because tickets are incredibly expensive and do not park in front of fire hydrants if I feel it is closer than 15 feet. The parking ticket I ended up getting said I parked 6 feet away which is something I would never do and dispute strongly.

My complaint is that I never got an initial physical ticket. If I did, I would have taken pictures, gotten a witness, something. But now, I did not obtain proof showing I did not park too close because I never thought I got a ticket because a ticket was never left on my windshield. By not informing me that I received a ticket, I was thus denied my opportunity to defend myself from that ticket.

Also,the ticket that I received in the mail is signed by a traffic officer who affirmed that he left that parking notice on my vehicle. The fact that the envelope was attached to my windshield and the parking ticket was not to be found compels me to question whether the ticket was affixed to my vehicle. Looking at the ticket, it appears to be created by a computer device. Is it possible to find out if the ticket was in fact printed out at the time listed on the ticket?


Anyway, this is very frustrating for me because I am fairly certain I did not park too close to the fire hydrant but now I have no way of proving it.

Any advice is appreciated, thanks.

[moocat]

The traffic agents print out the tickets at the scene. It's possible someone ripped the ticket off your car (it's been known to happen).

Go back to the address listed on the ticket, if you are standing in front of the building and it's 15 feet away from the hydrant, take pictures and go to the Parking Violations Bureau with the pictures to contest it.

[quelinda]

You can get a copy of your ticket on nyc.gov (sounds like you already have a copy). In order to give the printed type of ticket (rather than hand written), then officer must point their device at the bar code on your registration sticker, then all your information gets plugged into his/her mini computer and spits out your ticket on the scene.

The issue here really isn't whether or not a ticket was issued at the scene, because it was by virtue of having captured your bar code (I mean, are you denying you were in that vicinity? NO). The issue is that it is YOUR WORD against the officer's word regarding how close your car was to the hydrant. So you will simply write a letter to the address on the ticket where you dispute the ticket representing that you were __ feet away from the hydrant, not the 6 ft the officer claimed. Here is a paragraph that I use in some of my ticket dispute letters which you may want to add (I dispute almost every single ticket if there is any way possible without lying):

In Sanford F. Young vs. City of New York Department of Finance Parking Violations Adjudications, a case decided by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Part 17 on June 13, 2007, the judge held that "[i]f the petitioner submits testimony refuting the charges that is "not patently incredible" then the summons must be dismissed absent the submission of additional evidence by the respondent to meet its ultimate burden". Given that I have credibly asserted that I was parked __ feet, rather than 6 feet, from the hydrant, I have met my burden of proof that I did not commit this offense. Your agency is bound by this Supreme Court decision and this ticket should be dismissed accordingly.

[mathjak107]

one of the things people find hard to believe in new york is how little your words count in traffic court ......even an accident report taken at the scene is not admisable in court as evidence. its just your version true or not of what happened.
the reason i bring this up is someone admitting to a cop at the scene he did do something and admits to it ,carrys no more weight then telling the cop it wasnt your fault or you didnt do it..... you talk they write.... they have no clue if its true or not they didnt see it.. they can only comment on what they can see, your injuries, the position of the cars etc....... your words really no proof ...... unlike a criminal event anything you say pro or con is not admisable in court unless the officer can be cross examined.... since cops cant go to court for accidents unless death or extreme injury is involved the words you dictate are useless..

later on your free to change and mend your story any way you like, its strictly your version... even though someone can say they ran the light at the scene and they think its their fault they are free later on to say now i remember more vividly... i did have the green light

you saying i didnt do it is really no proof.... its your word vs his.... talikng a picture without the person who gave you the ticket being there is meaningless .you could have taken that picture with the car in any position you want to and whenever you want.. its not going to be much proof im afraid.....

[bluedog2]

Warning : There are two fire hydrants on the block at the side of my building.People get tickets near these hydrants almost every day.One morning recently at 6:30 am I saw them writing a ticket AND TAKING A PICTURE OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE and it's proximity to the hydrant.Looked to be about 10 or 12 ft to me.
They may have done the same with you .

[quelinda]

Yes bluedog, that's why you should only dispute a ticket if (a) you're in the right and telling the truth or (b) the ticket has incorrect or missing information. (b) used to work like a charm when they were filling out the ticket by hand, but there are far fewer errors now that they are using the hand held.

I dont agree with mathjak that what you say at the scene of a traffic incident cannot be used against you. Of course it can. That will add to the "clear and convincing evidence" against you at the hearing. The judge will say, hmmmmmn, at the scene you said "x" but now you think "y" happened? So either you can (a) lie and commit perjury by stating that you did not admit to the incident at the scene and the officer is lying or (b) you can say you now remember better. The judge may believe you over the officer, but most people dont have the nerve or ethics to lie outright under penalties of perjury. And the judge will not believe (b) so you will lose the hearing in that event. I just went to traffic court yesterday for a cell phone while driving charge so this is all very fresh in my mind..

[mathjak107]

let me tell you my tale.... a guy was traveling in the same direction as me on queens blvd... he attempted to make a left from the right lane and didnt see me.... boom!... cop came took a report, the guy said he didnt see me and accidently switched lanes to make his turn and hit me..... done deal.... im home free...


his company denys the claim as he changed his story and said i made a right and hit him... no problem, i got the police report ill sue him..

we get to court and the judge says she cant accept the accident report .. its not evidence as its not only not a sworn statement its what ever was said the cop just wrote...your free to change that story at will.


no court in new york she said can accept that report as you cant cross examine the report and the officer is not allowed to appear to be cross examined unless its a case of death or severe injury.. thats the loophole for a liar,,,nooooo cop is allowed to go in our city. a traffic ticket is different because the officer saw you or does appear for a ticket, not an accident


i almost lost except some photos i took seemed to show a little more that he hit me but it was close

what a surprise it was to find out no evidence could be introduced that couldnt be cross examined and that included an accident report....

i asked the judge if lying to a cop on the report was a crime and thats why i thought she should read it , she said no, its not a sworn or marandized statement and alot of people are so shaken at an accident scene that they have a totaly different perspective and rememberance of things once they calm down.


you can disagree but i hope you dont have to go to court counting on that report as evidence...you may be defensless

[quelinda]

Those are basic rules of evidence, which do not allow testimony from an "out of court declarant". In other words, the evidence is inadmissable since the officer who actually created the report cannot be cross-examined to determine if the report is accurate and to determine the out of court declarant's veracity (whether or not the officer truthfully completed the report).

For traffic court, the officer MUST show up to have any chance of winning the case for the very same reason..you cannot be prosecuted when an out of court declarant (the officer) isn't there to state what happened and be cross examined. I always appeal the traffic tickets because sometimes the officer doesn't show up (around 50% of the time) so then you make a "motion to dismiss" and you win.

[mathjak107]

if nothing else on the traffic tickets you can usually knock the points dowm

yep traffic court is different bacause the officer is present or else you win... regular court is a different case and thats why i said the accident reports are meaningless.... they only are used by the insurance companies as long as both sides agree.....

[nyc2ct]

I used to own a car and had my fair share of parking tickets. Even if I didn't intend to fight my case in court I still pleaded not guilty and asked for a trial. More than likely you will receive a fine-reduction offer at which point you can decide to pay a smaller fine or continue on.