In Matter of G* C* A*, Inc. v New York City Office of Administrative Trials & Hearings, the Appellate Division, First Department, addressed a dispute over the application of New York City's anti-idling law to armored trucks. The case centered on whether the petitioner, G* C* A*, Inc.—an armored transport company—was properly cited for violating Administrative Code § 24-163, which prohibits vehicle engine idling unless the engine powers a “loading, unloading or processing device.”
G* argued that its armored trucks must remain idling during deliveries to maintain onboard security systems, ensure immediate mobility in case of robbery, and provide ventilation due to sealed windows. The company submitted evidence, including a screenshot from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) website and a 2018 DEP email, both indicating that armored trucks were considered a “process” activity and thus exempt from the idling prohibition.
The court found that there was no indication the DEP had publicly changed its position before the 2022 violation. Therefore, the Environmental Control Board’s decision to uphold the violation conflicted with the DEP’s prior guidance and was deemed "arbitrary and capricious." The court unanimously reversed the violation, granted the Article 78 petition, and annulled the $350 penalty.
This decision underscores the importance of consistent regulatory interpretation and highlights how agency guidance—even informal—can shape the legal landscape for regulated entities.
They weren't about to let down their guard ....
# # #
DECISION
Matter of G* C* A*, Inc. v New York City Office of Administrative Trials & Hearings