20070705

10G TO BEAT$65 PARKING TICKET

By DAREH GREGORIAN

June 15, 2007 -- Sometimes it does pay to fight City Hall - even if it costs you bigtime.

Lawyer Sanford Young spent two years and almost $10,000, but finally beat the $65 ticket he fought all the way to Manhattan Supreme Court.

"I feel great," Young said yesterday after learning that Manhattan Justice Emily Jane Goodman had ordered the Parking Violations Bureau to pay his money back on the 2005 ticket.

"It's a good feeling to fight the system and right a wrong."

The lawyer estimated that his $9,935 loss was well worth it. "I figured I'm sick and tired and I'm not going to take it anymore," he said.

In her ruling, Goodman referred to Young's battle as the "unusual case of a parking-violation summons reaching the Supreme Court."

Young got the ticket on Nov. 29, 2005, after he parked on First Avenue near East 70th Street to have dinner with a friend. He returned from his $60 dinner to find a $65 ticket.

The summons charged him with violating the weekday no-parking rule between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., and "noted the time of the offense as 6:59 p.m.," the judge's decision says.

The summons especially ticketed Young off because he made sure he didn't park until after 7.

He entered a plea of not guilty on the Parking Violation Bureau's Web site. He called the ticket "absurd and wrong," and said that as "lifelong New Yorker and lawyer," he knew when he could park.

"Therefore, I respectfully ask that the summons be dismissed," he wrote.

The city Department of Finance offered to reduce the fine to $43, but Young declined the offer.

In March 2006, a city administrative law judge found that Young was "not persuasive," and was guilty as charged.

Young appealed the ruling and lost - which led to his suit in state Supreme Court.

"It cost a fortune" and "30 to 40 hours of my legal time, but it was time well spent," Young said, predicting the case would pave the way for others to right ticket wrongs.

The city declined comment.

Young said if the city appeals the ruling, "I'll be ready."

No comments: