Loading...
Minutes 10-08-15 MINUTES OF THE RED LIGHT CAMERA HEARINGS HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS CITY HALL, 100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BLVD, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON OCTOBER 8, 2015, AT 9:00 A.M. James Stokes, Special Magistrate Gwen Mills, Clerk, Boynton Beach Police Department Anthony Petriello, Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officer, Boynton Beach Police Department Officer Anthony Verrigni, Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officer, Boynton Beach Police Department 1. Call to Order: Mr. Stokes called the Red Light Camera Hearings to order at 9:30 a.m. He explained this process is governed and authorized by State Statute. He explained there is a cost to hold the Hearing. If the Petitioner opts to proceed and is found guilty there will be the fine and the cost of the Hearing. He advised if anyone wants to change their plea and not move forward with the Hearing, only the fine will remain. Mr. Stokes advised an Officer will present the City's testimony first. After a review of the video, the Petitioner will then present their testimony and then there will be a ruling. This process is less formal than a court proceeding. 2. Approval of Minutes None. 3. Amendments to the Agenda None. 4. Swear in of witnesses The Minutes Specialist administered an oath to all those intending to testify. 5. Violation Hearings: Failure to comply with a steady red signal. O. Eshloven Jean Notice No. 185100096073 Mr. Jean changed his plea to guilty and would not move forward with the hearing. Mr. Stokes advised the Clerk would give him his paperwork. Meeting Minutes Red Light Camera Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida October 8, 2015 J. David Soto Notice No. 1851500092973 Shana Bridgeman, Assistant City Attorney, explained because it had been a while since they had a local hearing, she wanted to call an ATS witness for questioning before the proceedings commenced. In response to direct questions from Attorney Bridgeman, Orlando Torres, employed by American Traffic Solutions, a /k/a/ ATS as an account manager for the City of Boynton Beach, made the following statements: • He covers about 35 municipalities in Florida; • He has worked for ATS for four years; • His duties interacting with the City of Boynton Beach were similar to a project manager; • He is the liaison from the City to ATS regarding the operation of the program; • Being a liaison included facilitating the contract between the City and ATS, and implementation of any part of the program, including handling the business rules; • Business rules were also known as "BRQs." • Mr. Torres was aware the City and ATS entered into an update to the contract, which was a fourth amendment and the City and ATS also updated the BRQs. • Mr. Torres advised the changes to the recent business rules occurred on August 10, 2015. Attorney Bridgeman inquired prior to August 10, 2015, if ATS sent all of the data to the City when it received information on the system. Mr. Torres explained ATS did not. It was based on the business rules provided by the City of Boynton Beach that governed the program. Those rules detailed there were violations the City wanted ATS to send directly to them. The business rules were followed and that particular data was forwarded to the City of Boynton Beach. ATS only sent the City what the City wanted ATS to send. Attorney Bridgeman inquired what ATS did with the information the City did not want and Mr. Torres responded it was still available for review on request. Attorney Bridgeman inquired if there was ever an occasion prior to August 2015 when the City of Boynton Beach requested to see some of the data that ATS did not automatically forward to the City and learned there was. Mr. Torres advised there were changes to the BRQs and contract since August 2015, which would affect what information is forwarded to the City of Boynton Beach. Mr. Torres explained the difference was every violation captured into the ATS system is forwarded for the City's review per the updated business rules. Attorney Bridgeman inquired if, in addition to sending violations, ATS sends all of the detections that are triggered or captured by the camera and Mr. Torres responded they do. In addition to the violations and detections, Attorney Bridgeman asked if ATS sends 2 Meeting Minutes Red Light Camera Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida October 8, 2015 all of the events captured by the camera and computer system at the Boynton Beach intersections and Mr. Torres responded they do. Attorney Bridgeman inquired if there was any data or information that ATS withholds and does not send to the City of Boynton Beach and Mr. Torres responded they send everything to Boynton Beach. Jeffrey Michael Brown, an Attorney in Florida, had questions. While understanding the necessity of the testimony due to court rulings, Mr. Stokes was unsure the testimony itself would be of any value on any kind of appeal if not subject to cross examination. He thought it would have some value should any of the matters be appealed. Attorney Bridgeman asked for Attorney Brown's bar number. Mr. Stokes inquired if he was an attorney licensed in the State of Florida and Attorney Brown responded he was. Attorney Brown noted there were dates mentioned, the amendment and a date after which all the documents or data were sent to the City. Attorney Brown inquired what the significance of August 20 date was. Mr. Torres responded he had mentioned August 10, 2015, which was the date they received the City's approved business rules that would be implemented for their red light camera program for enforcement. Attorney Brown thought he had talked about a date of August 20 and asked Mr. Stokes if he heard that date and Mr. Stokes responded he must have missed it. Mr. Torres remembered August 10 because he remembered ensuring the business rules were properly processed and implemented. Attorney Brown commented the updates were the result of a court case finding the red light camera lights unconstitutional as implemented. Mr. Torres responded it was the result of a new amendment that was agreed on by the City of Boynton Beach. Attorney Brown commented there was a court case that found red light cameras to be unconstitutional. Mr. Torres responded he was aware of a ruling, but was not aware of any ruling that said it was unconstitutional. Attorney Brown commented the ruling preceded the update and the contract and change with Boynton Beach. Ms. Bridgeman objected on the basis it was beyond the scope of the direct questions. She only questioned Mr. Torres about the contract, the BRQs, the amendment and what was different. Mr. Stokes opted for a little latitude for Attorney Brown. Attorney Brown reviewed first came the ruling, then the changes, updates and the new contract. Mr. Torres responded affirmatively. Attorney Brown requested confirmation the changes to the contract included the data sent to the City, in part. Mr. Torres responded affirmatively. Attorney Brown inquired if before the update, ATS sent selective data to the City and from and after a particular date, they sent all the data to the City. Mr. Torres advised before the change, they sent the information the City requested per their business rules and their enforcement. 3 Meeting Minutes Red Light Camera Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida October 8, 2015 Mr. Stokes advised what occurred in the past was not relevant. They are looking prospectively. There had been court proceedings and cities have adjusted for that. Attorney Brown asked from after what date all the information was sent to the City. Mr. Torres responded after the business rules were captured, after August the 10 those business rules were changed to enhance their program and at the City's direction, they send the City all those events. The information is sent to the officers who handle enforcement for the City. Mr. Torres did not know their names. The data goes, per the business rules as requested by the City, to individuals who are identified to receive that information and have access to the information. He deferred to the City to provide those names. Mr. Torres knew who they were, but not their names by memory as they are listed on the business rules. Mr. Stokes introduced himself and his credentials. He is a Special Magistrate appointed to handle these cases. He has no relationship with the City of Boynton Beach. He is a Special Magistrate and Arbitrator and handles matters throughout the State on a variety of issues including civil, labor, Code Enforcement and Red light camera cases. He is appointed pursuant to State Statute to adjudicate these matters. When asked by Attorney Bridgeman to identify himself, the Petitioner responded his name was David Soto. Anthony Petriello, Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officer, with the Boynton Beach Police Department would present the case. Attorney Bridgeman inquired what Officer Petriello's title was and learned he was a Community Service Officer. He has been working in this capacity for slightly over three years and he works with the City's Red Light Camera Program as a Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officer reviewing vehicles that have gone through a steady red light at an intersection. Officer Petriello advised he uses a computer to review possible Red Light Camera violations, which are referred to as events. When Officer Petriello comes to work, he has a sign in and log on for the Boynton Beach computers which he uses for all of his work duties. Officer Petriello advised he has not shared his sign in or log on with anyone. When it is time to review events with the Red Light Camera matters, Officer Petriello launches the Internet Explorer application and goes into the Axsis Internet Data Base and URL to review. Officer Petriello has to log in with another user name and password that is separate from his Boynton Beach log in. Officer Petriello had not shared the second user name and password with anyone. Once signed in with the user name and password, he looks in the Police Review Queue, which is the first of two queues he reviews. The second queue was called categorized events. Attorney Bridgeman inquired, although there are two queues, if the City of Boynton Beach receives all of the detections, information, video and photographs captured by the cameras and Officer Petriello responded they do. ATS does not hold anything back. Attorney Bridgeman inquired if he and Officer Verrigini review everything that comes 4 Meeting Minutes Red Light Camera Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida Oc tober 8, 2015 through and Officer Petriello responded they do. He advised he works on queue one on a daily basis, and works queue two every other day. Officer Petriello's supervisor checks to ensure they are working both queues and looking at everything. The supervisor, Sgt. Hawkins, checks on them daily. When Attorney Bridgeman asked Office Petriello how he came to issue a Notice of Violation for Mr. Soto, Officer Petriello explained he logs into the Axsis system and he reviewed a 2003 white Chevy four -door vehicle with the license plate number registered to David Soto. Mr. Soto was travelling westbound on Gateway Boulevard at Congress Avenue in the number five lane. After reviewing the electronic video and pictures, he saw he ran through the stop bar on a solid red signal, and he issued a violation for him on August 31, 2015. Attorney Bridgeman inquired if a violation was a Notice of Violation and Officer Petriello responded it was. She asked if his signature appeared on the Notice of Violation and learned it did. A Notice of Violation is also called an NOV. Attorney Bridgeman inquired how Officer Petriello's signature gets on the Notice of Violation. Officer Petriello responded when the Axsis system was set up, he had to sign a paper and send it to ATS and they put it into the Axsis system. He reviewed the Notice of Violation for Mr. Soto and the signature on the Notice of Violation was his, and it was the same signature he provided to ATS to use electronically. Attorney Bridgeman inquired if Officer Petriello had not issued the Notice of Violation to Mr. Soto, if his signature would be on the Notice of Violation and learned it would not. Officer Petriello has other duties outside of Red Light Camera matters, and during the course of his duties, he uses Microsoft Outlook to send emails. He has sent fellow Officers and Attorney Bridgeman email, and he uses the send button to do so. When he uses the send button, Officer Petriello is sending the email, not the software. When he is in the Axsis system and he issues the Notice of Violation, he is issuing the Notice of Violation and not the software. Officer Petriello and Officer Verrigini are the Officers who determine whether a Notice of Violation will be issued. With Mr. Soto's matter, Officer Petriello decided he should be issued the Notice of Violation because after reviewing the video, it showed a vehicle that crossed the stop bar on a solid red light and it was a violation, so he issued the violation. No one from ATS made any decisions about issuing a Notice of Violation to Mr. Soto. Officer Petriello was familiar with the City's business rules, and commented the City does not enforce right -turn on red violations. ATS knows the City does not issue right - turn on red violations because it is listed in the BRQs. Attorney Bridgeman asked if, in addition to the right -turn on red limitations, there were any directives the City gives to ATS about the red light camera program and Officer Petriello responded there were, and they were listed in the BRQs. Officer Petriello has also observed other officers issuing citations on the side of the road, outside of the Red Light Camera Program, to motorists. 5 Meeting Minutes Red Light Camera Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida October 8, 2015 Attorney Bridgeman inquired when the City of Boynton Beach issues non -red light citations if they use a software system to print the citations and Officer Petriello responded they did and it was called Traffic and Criminal Softwater (TRACS.) Attorney Bridgeman admitted into evidence a certified copy of the BRQs, the City's contract and all the amendments, certified by the City Clerk. Officer Petriello brought evidence to the meeting regarding the violation committed by Mr. Soto. Officer Petriello presented the evidence as follows: A video of the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Congress Avenue, dated August 22, 2015, at 3:40 a.m. showed a white vehicle travelling in the number five lane which was a white four -door Chevy. Messrs. Stokes and Soto viewed the video. Officer Petriello reviewed the light was yellow, it turned red and the vehicle went through it. He played the video a second time highlighting the light was still yellow when the vehicle approached, and the light changed from yellow to red, and the vehicle travelled through the stop bar. Officer Petriello also had still photographs which were viewed. The first was the vehicle before the stop bar when the light turned red, and the second photograph was of the vehicle past the stop bar when the light was red. Officer Petriello reiterated this occurred at the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Congress Avenue. He also stated during the course of his duties, he travels through the intersection. The intersection that appeared in the video and photographs were accurately represented when driving through it. Officer Petriello commented the intersection was located in Palm Beach County in the City of Boynton Beach. Mr. Soto explained the vehicle was his daughter's car. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) was supposed to put it solely under her name and issue a new plate, and they never did. When he received the summons, he went to the DMV with his daughter and the person who was behind the counter was new. They were supposed to destroy the old plate and issue a new one, which they did. Mr. Soto had evidence this was done. Mr. Stokes noted when the notice was sent in the mail, it included paperwork that indicates if he was not the driver, he should identify the driver. Mr. Soto advised he did not send it in. Mr. Soto provided the registration to Mr. Stokes for review. Officer Petriello recounted the violation was issued on August 22, when Mr. Soto's name was on the registration. Mr. Soto indicated he was not driving the vehicle that day at 3:40 a.m. Decision Based on the evidence, Mr. Stokes believed Mr. Soto, but he was the registered owner of the vehicle. Absent the driver, the Statute states the citation should be issued to the first name on the registration which was Mr. Soto. Mr. Stokes had no choice but to uphold the citation. He suggested Mr. Soto obtain the fine from his daughter. A. Laurence Neiberg Case No. 1851500084921 6 Meeting Minutes Red Light Camera Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida Octo 8, 2015 Officer Verrigini, Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officer, Boynton Beach Police Department, reviewed on August 10, 2015, at 12:12 p.m., a vehicle matching the license plate registered to the Petitioner was travelling eastbound on Gateway Boulevard at Congress Avenue in the number two lane. After reviewing the electronic evidence, a Notice of Violation was issued on August 27, 2015. The red light time was .4 seconds. Officer Verrigini had a video and two still photographs which Mr. Stokes and Mr. Neiberg viewed. Mr. Neiberg advised he viewed the video and he was the third and fourth car making a left hand turn. Traffic making the left hand turn across from him was still turning. He questioned the length of the light and noted traffic was still moving. Mr. Stokes advised the amber time on the arrow was five seconds. Boynton Beach increased the length of their amber times from what was statutorily required which was 3.5 seconds. Mr. Stokes requested the video be replayed. Decision Mr. Stokes advised based on the video and the still photographs, traffic was not moving very fast and there was no one next to him. The light was clearly red for several seconds before Mr. Neiberg reached the stop line. Mr. Stokes upheld the violation. Mr. Neiberg indicated he would pay the fine today. M. Michael John Downey Case No. 1851500094474 Officer Verrigni reviewed on August 24, 2015, at 10:08 a.m., a vehicle matching the license plate registered to the Petitioner, was traveling southbound on NW 8 th Street at W. Boynton Beach Boulevard in the number two lane. After a review of the electronic evidence, a Notice of Violation was issued on September 1, 2015. Messrs. Stokes and Downey viewed the video and still photographs. Officer Verrigni advised the light was already red. Mr. Downey pled guilty and would pay today. H. John Richard Mooney Case No. 1851500088047 Officer Verrigni reviewed on August 14, 2015, at 7:02 p.m., a vehicle registered to the Petitioner matching the license plate was travelling south bound on NW 8 th Street at W. Boynton Beach Boulevard in lane one. After a review of the electronic evidence and still photographs, a Notice of Violation was issued on August 28, 2015. Messrs. Stokes and Mooney viewed the video and still photographs. 7 Meeting Minutes Red Light Camera Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida October 8, 2015 Mr. Mooney thought it was a different car because the violation did not specify which car and another vehicle was similar to his. Officer Verrigni read the license plate number and reviewed the vehicle with the violation matched the license plate of the Petitioner. Mr. Mooney did not remember going through the intersection and commented it may have been his wife. If he had known which car in the video was his, he would not have appealed the violation and incurred additional costs. Decision Mr. Stokes understood the confusion, but he clearly ran the light and he upheld the violation. Mr. Mooney would pay the fine today, but Mr. Stokes removed the hearing costs. E. Marie Banks Josey Case No. 1851500085852 Ms. Banks Josey changed her plea to guilty and advised she would pay the ticket. F. Valencia Michell Spells Anderson Case No. 1851500086033 Officer Verrigni reviewed on August 11, 2015, at 9:02 p.m., a four -door vehicle matching the license plate registered to the Petitioner was travelling northbound on Federal Highway at SE 23 in the number three lane. After a review of the electronic evidence and photographs, a Notice of Violation was issued August 27, 2015. Mr. Stokes and Ms. Spells Anderson viewed the video and still photographs. Ms. Spells Anderson commented the car may have been driven by her husband or daughter, but she did not fill out the Transfer of Liability Affidavit. Ms. Spells Anderson inquired how the video got into the respective queues. She commented the company in Arizona is not supposed to dictate how the videos go into their respective queues. Officer Verrigni responded it was through the Business Rules. She commented the City was outsourcing the events to an outside company. Officer Verrigini explained they go to two different queues. One is a police review and the other is detections that occur that do not fit the Business Rules. The City tells the company what they want them to do and the City determines the violations. Ms. Spells Anderson felt in order for the company to place detections in one queue as opposed to the other, they already made a determination. Mr. Stokes understood they put everything they believe meets the criteria of a violation into a queue, but a Notice of Violation is not sent until an officer reviews it and decides to send it. It was an initial screening, but they are not deciding who gets cited. Mr. Stokes advised if she wanted to challenge the process and the programs, she can go to Circuit Court. He noted her argument was on the record, and that she challenged the program based on established law. 8 Meeting Minutes Red Light Camera Hearings Florida Boynton Beach, Oc 8, 2015 Decision Based on the video and still photographs, Mr. Stokes upheld the violation and gave her 30 days to pay. B. Judith Ann Andrews Case No. 1851500085043 Officer Verrigni reviewed on August 10, 2015, at 2:47 p.m., a vehicle matching the license plate registered to the petitioner was travelling eastbound on Gateway Boulevard at Congress Avenue in the number two lane. After a review of the electronic evidence, a Notice of Violation was issued on August 27, 2015. Mr. Stokes and Ms. Andrews viewed the video and still photographs. Decision Mr. Stokes upheld the citation and would issue an order. Ms. Andrews advised she would pay within 30 days. G. Jeffrey Michael Brown Case No.1851500086389 Jeffrey Brown, Attorney, was put under oath. Officer Petriello reviewed on August 12, 2015, at 12:58 p.m. a vehicle registered to the Petitioner and matching the license plate was travelling southbound on NW 8 th Street at Boynton Beach Boulevard in the number two lane. After a review of the electronic evidence, a Notice of Violation was issued on August 27, 2015. Mr. Stokes and Attorney Brown viewed the video and still photographs. Attorney Brown inquired if the date of the offense of August 12, 2015, was received from Arizona and Officer Petriello responded it was. He issued the violation 15 days later, and it showed up in queue one. Attorney Brown inquired why it sat in the computer for 15 days. Officer Petriello responded he checks his computer daily, but that did not mean the video was in the queue on the 12 He did not know when it appeared in his queue, nor did he know who would know. It was after August 12 Officer Petriello looked at it on August 27, 2015 and he issued the Notice of Violation on August 27 Officer Petriello did not know who mailed it. Officer Petriello explained ATS mailed the violation from Arizona, once Officer Petriello electronically issued the Notice of Violation. No one from the City mailed it from Arizona. Attorney Bridgeman had asked of Officer Petriello, earlier on direct examination with regard to Mr. Soto's case, if any human being at the corporation American Traffic Solutions makes any decisions to issue the Notice of Violation. Officer Petriello responded no. 9 Meeting Minutes Red Light Camera Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida October 8, 2015 Attorney Bridgeman inquired if any human beings at ATS made any decisions to issue an Notice of Violation to Attorney Brown. Attorney Brown objected because he had lack of firsthand knowledge and lack of predicate which was overruled. Officer Petriello responded no one at ATS had any decision making in the violation for Attorney Brown. Attorney Bridgeman asked if Officer Petriello issued the Notice of Violation to Attorney Brown using the ATS software and learned he did. Attorney Bridgeman asked once the software was issued, was a human involved in mailing the Notice of Violation. Attorney Brown objected on lack of firsthand knowledge, as Officer Petriello had indicated no one from the City of Boynton Beach was in Arizona so it had to be sent out by mail. Mr. Stokes suggested rewording the question. Attorney Bridgeman inquired if Officer Petriello knew whether or not it is an automated process after they issue a Notice of Violation. Officer Petriello did not know firsthand, but believed it was automated, based on discussions with the ATS representative, and there was no human involvement after that. No one made a decision to issue the violation, except for him. Attorney Brown asked when Officer Petriello says issue, if it meant he pressed a button in Boynton Beach and the information goes to Arizona who sends out the information as far as he knew. Officer Petriello responded affirmatively as far as he knew. Decision Mr. Stokes upheld the violation, and commented as the Special Magistrate he had no authority to address the process, only to decide the facts. Based on the video, there clearly was a violation. He asked if he needed 30 days. Attorney Brown responded he needed 30 days and asked if he was clear he was challenging the constitutionality and compliance with Florida Statute. Mr. Stokes understood and he made his record. It has to be taken up with the Circuit Court. C. Shatara Kamis Shatara Case No. 1851500085480 The Minutes Specialist administered an oath to Mr. Shatara. Officer Verrigni reviewed on August 11, 2015, at 7:48 a.m., a vehicle matching the license plate registered to the Petitioner was traveling eastbound on Gateway Boulevard and Congress Avenue in the number four lane. After reviewing the electronic evidence, a Notice of Violation was issued on August 27, 2015. Messrs. Stokes and Shatara viewed the video and still photographs. Mr. Shatara confirmed it was his vehicle, and he filled out the Transfer of Liability Affidavit, but he did not know which family member was driving the car. He was out of 10 Meeting Minutes Red Light Camera Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida Octobe 8, 2015 the country and had his flight information and passport, but the summons and notice was issued in his name. The violation goes to the vehicle owner. It was easier for him to just pay the ticket. Decision Mr. Stokes upheld the violation. N. Nell Elaine Davis Case No. 1851500095935 Officer Verrigini reviewed on August 26, 2015, at 11:51 a.m., a 2008 vehicle matching the license plate registered to the Petitioner was travelling southbound on Federal Highway at SE 23 Avenue in the number three lane. After reviewing the electronic evidence, a Notice of Violation was issued on September 3, 2015. Mr. Stokes and Ms. Davis viewed the video and still photographs. Ms. Davis advised she has four vehicles registered to her. She was at work that day and it may have been her daughter or husband. She would pay the ticket. She had proof she was at work and was trying to earn a living. She thought there should be officers on duty to catch the drivers. Decision Based on the evidence, Mr. Stokes upheld the violation. I. Jeffrey Christo Wagner Case No. 1851500092171 Mr. Wagner requested 30 days to pay. He asked if he could still appeal the matter to the Circuit Court and was advised he could. Decision Mr. Stokes upheld the violation. D. Gaildoreen Allen Case No. 1851500085571 Officer Verrigini advised on August 11, 2015, at 9:26 a.m., a vehicle matching the license plate registered to the Petitioner was travelling southbound on Federal Highway in the number two lane. After a review of the electronic evidence, a Notice of Violation was issued on August 27, 2015. Mr. Stokes viewed the video and still photographs. Decision 11 Meeting Minutes Red Light Camera Hearings Boyn ton Beach, Fl Octob 8, 2015 Mr. Stokes noted the Petitioner was not present, upheld the violation and assessed a fine of $243 payable within 30 days. K. Michael Dennis Guyette Case No. 1851500093740 Officer Petriello reviewed on August 23, 2015, at 1:47 a.m., a vehicle matching the license plate registered to the Petitioner was traveling eastbound on Gateway Boulevard in the number three lane. After a review of the electronic evidence, a Notice of Violation was issued on August 31, 2015. He noted the red light time was 33.6 seconds. The Petitioner was not present. Mr. Stokes viewed the video and still photographs. Decision Based on the evidence and the Petitioner not being present, Mr. Stokes upheld the violation and assessed a fine of $243, payable within 30 days, with the Order to be mailed to him. L. John J. Pryzmocki Case No. 1851500094185 Officer Petriello noted the Petitioner was not present and reviewed on August 23, 2015, at 8:39 a.m., a vehicle matching the license plate registered to the Petitioner was traveling eastbound on East Boynton Beach Boulevard at Seacrest Boulevard in the number one lane. After reviewing the electronic evidence, a Notice of Violation was issued on August 31, 2015. Mr. Stokes viewed the video and still photographs. Decision Based on the Petitioner not being present to proffer evidence or testimony, Mr. Stokes upheld the violation and assessed a fine of $243, payable within 30 days, with the Order to be mailed to him at his last known address in Staten Island. Adjournment There being no further business, Mr. Stokes adjourned the Hearings at 11 a.m. oolkw� A Catherine Cherry Minutes Specialist 101695 12