\\jciprod01\productn\N\NYL\20-1\NYL101.txt unknown Seq: 12 17-APR-17 10:20
12 LEGISLATION AND PUBLIC POLICY [Vol. 20:1
§ 55-19(a); see also Brief for Respondent Eric T. Schneiderman at 4–5, Melrose
Credit Union v. City of New York, No. 2016-02214 (N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 22, 2016)
(noting that the “supposed exclusive right of the taxicab industry to serve the street-
hail market in New York City . . . arises from three sources,” citing the HAIL Act, the
New York City Administrative Code, and Taxi and Limousine Commission Rules). If
e-hailing were considered street hailing, only medallion taxis (and green taxis in
northern Manhattan and the outer boroughs) would be able to respond to e-hails, and
black cars, which include Uber cars, would no longer be able to respond to e-hails
unless they complied with the same rules as medallion taxis. Thus, not surprisingly,
the traditional taxi industry argues that e-hailing through Uber and other taxi apps is
the equivalent of hailing or street hailing, not prearrangement. Classifying e-hailing as
street hailing would prevent Uber from operating under its current business model.
See Complaint at 19, CGS Taxi LLC v. City of New York, No. 653264/2015 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct. Sept. 30, 2015) (“An ‘e-hail’ is a hail, not a pre-arrangement.”); Complaint at
18, Singh v. City of New York, No. 701402/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 30, 2017)
(same); Brief for Petitioners-Appellants at 37, Glyka Trans LLC v. City of New York,
No. 2015-11661 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 30, 2015) (“E-hails are equivalent to the tradi-
tional hail and are therefore exclusively in the domain of medallion taxicab ser-
vices.”); Brief for Petitioners-Appellants at 2, Glyka Trans LLC, No. 2015-11661
(“An e-hail is a hail, not a prearrangement . . . . ”); Reply Brief for Petitioners-Appel-
lants at 1, Glyka Trans LLC, No. 2015-11661 (“[I]f an e-hail is a hail, then an e-hail
transmitted from the street is a street hail . . . .”); Amended Complaint at 41, Melrose
Credit Union v. City of New York, No. 1:15-cv-09042 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2016)
(“[E]lectronic ‘hails’ constitute a modern form of traditional street hail—and thus,
belong exclusively to medallion taxicabs.”).
New York City maintains that “all trips arranged by smartphone app [are] . . .
prearrangements.” Brief for Respondents at 43, Glyka Trans LLC, No. 2015-11661;
see also Brief for Respondents at 53, Melrose Credit Union, No. 2016-02214 (“[T]he
use of an app to arrange a ride is a prearrangement . . . . ”). The City denies that an e-
hail is a “street hail,” but nonetheless maintains “that an e-hail is a hail” (as well as a
prearrangement). Brief for Respondents at 57, Melrose Credit Union, No. 2016-
02214. The City argues that “hail” is a generic term for summoning a taxi that encom-
passes street hails and prearrangement, and that e-hails are a sub-category of prear-
rangement. Brief for Respondents at 53, Glyka Trans LLC, No. 2015-11661 (“The
Commission’s rules . . . describ[e] several ways to hail a taxi. One is a street hail,
which involves ‘a verbal (audio) action such as calling out, yelling, or whistling, and/
or a visible physical action such as raising one’s hand or arm.’ 35 R.C.N.Y. § 51-03.
Another way to hail a taxi is ‘through an electronic method’ involving a smartphone
app. Id. Both are hails, but only the first is a street hail; the second is a prearrange-
ment. . . . [S]treet hails and prearrangements are two distinct subsets of ‘hails . . . .’”).
By characterizing e-hails as a form of prearrangement, rather than a street hail, the
City presumably is trying to protect its decision to allow for-hire vehicles (which
include black cars), as well as medallion and green taxis, to respond to e-hails. Neither
City nor New York State law grants any industry segment a monopoly on providing
prearranged service.
In the ongoing litigation, the traditional industry argues that the City has taken
inconsistent positions on whether e-hails are a form of pre-arrangement. Brief for
Petitioners-Appellants at 17–18, Glyka Trans LLC, No. 2015-11661 (“Without any
explanation, however, the TLC has now taken the bizarre position that an e-hail is a
hail when it comes to yellow taxis, but that an e-hail is a pre-arrangement when it
comes to black cars.”); see also Brief for Petitioners-Appellants at 42–43, 47–53,
Melrose Credit Union, No. 2016-02214. The traditional industry argues that the Taxi
and Limousine Commission categorized e-hails as a type of hail, “not a pre-arrange-
ment,” in 2015 when it allowed medallion taxis to respond to e-hails, and earlier