Yep Tour Bus Settlement

I]NITED STATËS DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------x YEP TOUR, INC.

STIPULATION OÍ' SETTLEMENT AND

Plaintiff, - against -

NTSCOT+TINUANCE

THE CITY OF NËW YORK, NEl¡/ YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SHERIFF JOSEPH FUCITO, JOHN DOE #1, and JOFIN DOE # 2

17

CV 1110

Defendants.

x lryHEREÄ.S, YEP TOUR, INC. commenced this action against THE CITY OF

NEW YORK, THE NE$/ YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

("DOT'), THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ("DOF"),

and

SHERIFF JOSEPH FUCITO ("the Sheriff') alleging violations of its rights secured by 49 U.S. Code $14501, 42 U.S.C. $$ 1983, 1985 and 198ó, and by Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and Interstate Commerce Clause of the

United States Constitution and for rights secured under the laws and Constitution of the Statc

ofNew York; and \ryHEREAS, YEP TOUR, INC. sought by Order To Show Cause a ternporÍry

restaining order ("TRO") and preliminary injunction to restrain and enjoin defendants from the auctioning and/or selling or three Passenger Coach Busses seized from YEP

TOUR, INC.

by the Sheriff bearing VIN #s:

2M93JMP4X4W062399,

YE2TC 1 2B IY2043g4Iand 2M93JMPA84V/0 623g8(the "subj ect vehicles") ; and

\ryHEREAS, the subject vehicles u'ere seized by the Sheriff to satisff a January 31, 2017 Judgment in the arnount of $127,057.26, a copy of which is annexed hereto

Exhibit A ('"the January 31, 2017 Judgment").

as

lryHEREAS, on February 15, 2017, the parties appeared be.fore Hon. John G. Koeltl, at which time the Court declined to grant the requested TRO and set up a further briefrng schedule regarding the preliminary injunction; and 1ryHERËAS, on February 16,2017 , the parties entcred into a Stipulation, a ropy

of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference, which provided, inter alia, for release of the subject vehicles conditioned on adhering to a payment schedule to satisfy the January 3I,2017 Judgment; and

\trHEREÄS, judgment debt and non-judgment debt continues to accrue against

Plaintift

and

WHEREAS, the parties wish to resolve the issues in this litigation; NO\ry' THEREFORE,

it is hereby stipulated

and agreed, by and between the

parties here, as follows, upon the signing of this Stipulation and Order:

l.

That simultaneous with executing this agreemÊnt, Plaintiff withdraws,

with prejudice all of the claims that were raísed or could have been raised by Plaintiff in the Complaint subject to the tenns and conditions of this agreement. Plaintiff also hereby

withdraws any motion brought on by Order to Show Cause in this action. Either party may file this Stipulation with the Court. Each party

will bcar its own attorneys' fees,

costs and oxpenses incurred in connection with this action.

2.

Plaintiffwill simultaneous with the execution of this stipulation pay DOF

$27,688.65 in satisfaction of the judgment debt set forth in an Excel spreadsheet attached hereto as Exhibit C in satisfaction of the parking violations set forth therein (hereinafter ooJudgment

Debt").

3.

The payrnent of'the $27,688.65 shall be by certifred check payable to the

Department of Finance and delivered to undersigned counsel, Pamela A. Koplik, Esq., at the New

York City Law Department, 100 Church Street, New York, New York 10007.

4,

The payment sct forth in paragraph "2" above is in addition to Plaintiff

continuing to timely make all payments to satis+ the January 31,2017 Judgnrent and all associated interest, Sheriffs fees, mandate executing expenses, heavy duty towing expenses, storage expenses and poundage (hereinafter, collectively "Charges") pursuant

to the February

5.

16,20ll Stipulation (Exhibit B).

Within 5 business days of receipt by undersigned counsel of

peyment set forth

in

requested by DOT in its

paragraph &2)) above;

ii)

i)

the

the iriformation and documentation

Aprit 3,2017 e-mailto Jeremy Walker, Plaintiffs representative,

a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit D; and (iii) the fee associated with

an

Intercity Bus Permit pursuant to 34 RCNY 4-10(dXS), DOT will issue an Intercity Bus Permit to Plaintiffpursuant to New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law

("VTL-) $ 1642-

a and Titte 34 of the Rules of the City of New York ("RCNY") $ 4-10(d) for a term

of

sixth months pursuant to 34 RCNY 4-10(dX6). Said Intercity Bus Permit would authorize

Plaintiff to use a bus stop located on thc median on the west side of Pike Street between Division Street and East Broadway, in Manhattân, New York. A map that identifies the location of this bus stop authorized by the Intercity Bus Permit is annexed hereto

as

ExhĂ­bit E.

6

Plaintiff must abide by all applicable law including the VTL and RCNY

it pertains to Intercity Bus Permits including the obtigations

set forth

as

in 34 RCNY 4-

10(dX7) and Plainliffs Intercity Bus Permit may be suspended or revoked as set forth in

34 RCNY 4-10(dX8) or for violation of any of the terms set forth in this Stipulation or in

the February 16, 2017 Stipulation. Plaintiff represents that passengers are not obsuucting the sidewalks;

it will

ensure that

i)

all

ii) Plaintiffs' vehicles are not laying over,

idling or double parking, and are abiding by schedule; and iii) Plaintiffs' vehicles are not irnpeding traffic or blocking travel lanes.

7.

Plaintiff fruther agrees (once the January 31,2017 Judgment is satisfïed

pursuant to th€ February 16, 2017 Stipulation)

to pay to DOF five thousand dollars

($5,000) çvsry week on Thursdays by either cash or check at the DOF Collections Center located at 66 John Street, New York, New York rurtil the non-judgment dçbt listed on an

Excel spreadsheet attached hereto as ExhÍbit F (hereinafter "Non-Judgment Debt") is paid in satisfaction of

.the

parking violations set forth therein. The parties acknowledge

that some of the parking violations listed on Exhibit F may stitl be subject admínistrative challenge.

If Plaintiff does timely

on Exhibit F and is ultimately successful, Plaintiff

to

challenge the parking violations listed

will not be liable to pay those parking

violations. If Plaintiffdoes not tímely challenge the parking violations listed on Exhibit F

in accordance with 19 RCNY 39-04(a), the time to challenge those parking violations

will

have lapsed, those parking violations

will no longer be subject to

challenge, and

Plaintiffagrees to make payments on those parking viol¿itions.

8.

PlaÍntiff acknowledges that parking violations may be issued after the

execution of this Stipulation and Plaintiff agrees to pay all parking violations that are no longer subject to challenge,

9.

If

payrnent of any of the weekly payments pursuant to paragraphs 4 and 7

above is not timely made and becomes more than two weeks late. or

if

any checks that

are tendered are retumed for insuff,rcient funds or for any other reason, such late paymÊnt

or retumed checks may ât DOT's discretion be grounds for suspension or revocation of

the Intercity Bus Permit issued to Plaintiff and Defendants may enforce any and all judgments according to applicable law. These grounds for suspension or revocation are in addition to any grounds listed in 34 RCNY 4-10(dXB) for suspension or revocation.

10.

The parties agree that this Stipulation shall not be construed as

an

admission of wrongdoing on either side's part.

I

L

This Stipulation shall not be admissible in, nor is it related to, any other

litÍgation or settlement negotiations,

12.

This Stipulation contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the

parties hereto, and no oral agreemcnt entered into at any time nor any wrinen agresment entered into prior to the execution of this Stipulation regarding the subject matter of this

stipulation shall be deemed to exist, or to bind the parties hereto, or to vary the terms and conditions contained herein.

13.

Except as provided

in paragraph 4

above, the parties agree that no

evidence of any rnatter raised for the purpose of agreeing to this Stipulation, including but not limÍted to any discussion, admission, concession or offer to seffle, whethcr oral or

written, made during any negotiation concerning this Stipulation, shall be used for any purpose irr any judicial or administrative proceeding

limited to its use in this action or in any other litigation.

of any kind, including but not

14.

Counsel for the parties have reviewed and revised this Stipulation, and any

rule of construction, by which any ambiguities are t0 be resolved against the drafting party, shall not be applied in the interpretation of this Stipulation.

Dated:

-1 April;1,2017

THE RAMBADADT LAW OFFICE Attomevs for Plaintiff 2û \¡/. 2bù Street, znd Floor New York, New York 10011 (646) 4s0-8049

ZACHARY !V. CARTER

By:

By: Dru Carey, Esq.

Corporation Counsel of the City ofNew York Attomey for Ðefendants 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007 (212) 3s6-2187

Pamela

A. Koplik, Esq.

zZpt t