People v. Jofaz Transportation, Inc.

A New York Supreme Court denied school bus companies’ motion to dismiss the New York Attorney General’s action alleging that they violated New York State idling prohibitions and seeking injunctive and monetary relief for repeated and persistent violations of New York State and New York City idling prohibitions. The court rejected the defendants’ contentions that the Attorney General failed to allege that each defendant was a “person” under the anti-idling requirement, that the idling occurred in a “heavy-duty vehicle,” and that the defendants allowed or permitted the idling. In addition, the court rejected the contention that the Attorney General failed to demonstrate that exceptions to the prohibition were inapplicable or that the complaint “improperly lumped” allegations against the defendants. The court also rejected arguments regarding the Attorney General’s jurisdiction to bring the cause of action related to repeated and persistent violations. The court found that the defendants’ contentions that the action violated equal protection or the Excessive Fines clause of the Eighth Amendment and a related New York constitutional provision lacked merit; the court also said the excessive fines challenge was not ripe. In addition, the court denied a motion to strike the entire complaint. The court found that the complaint’s allegations regarding idling’s contributions to climate change, as well as other allegations, did not reach the level of being “inherently prejudicial.”

New York State Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit alleging that three school bus contractors for New York City violated New York State and New York City restrictions on idling vehicles. The complaint alleged that emissions from the idling buses “both harm public health and contribute to climate change.” The State asked the court to direct the companies to ensure their buses comply with legal limits on idling, to require the companies to implement education and training for their management and employees regarding the health and environmental effects of exhaust and the idling laws and regulations, to require that the companies monitor compliance with idling laws, and to impose civil penalties.