Violations Dismissed for Failure to Name Business Entity Correctly
The owner of a multimillion-dollar car parking facility hired Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. to defend against city violations which threatened to shut down operations. The violation alleged that parking lifts had been built in an unsafe location.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. visited the site with construction and architectural experts who inspected the lifts and concluded that they were safe. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. also worked closely with surveyors to resubmit plans to the city for approval of the current location, and successfully argued against a closure of the facility in a separate Supreme Court action.
Research also showed that the full name of the parking business had not been properly written on the notice of violation. Before the hearing, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. visited the offices of the Environmental Control Board Appeals Board to review hundreds of decisions on cases which were not available to the public, and found a handful of cases where violations had been dismissed for not properly naming the respondent.
At the hearing, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. provided copies of these cases and argued that the violation should be dismissed because the full business name was not written on the notice. The city argued that the omission of the full name was trivial and there was no prejudice to the owner. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. countered that the failure to properly name the owner of the parking facility meant that the Environmental Control Board did not have jurisdiction over Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s client.
Based on the “credible testimony and substantiating documentary evidence” of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., the judge held that the client’s parking facility and the business named in the violation were different entities, and the violation was therefore dismissed.
Pete Reid and Adam Leitman Bailey represented the owner in this action in front of the Environmental Control Board.