Charge codes 440
This group holds codes with no chapter-dash-section shape. The largest part is 506B, 506C and 506D (NYC Admin Code §19-506(b)-(d), unlicensed for-hire activity, 1992–2016), plus similar shorthand like 507A4 and 19506B. Most of the rest are 3-digit codes with a letter (401B, 106C) and 4-digit codes (0202, 0315) found almost only on summonses written January–June 1992, which use an older numbering whose text is not online. The remainder are garbled or internal entries such as '.', 'X' or AGT-SETTL.
"20113.1" does not match any TLC rule or NYC Administrative Code section we could find. It may be a mistyped code or a number from another system. One entry with no usable date. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
"06030105" looks like two of the TLC's pre-mid-1992 codes, 0603 and 0105, typed together with no space. The text of that older numbering is not available online. One entry, June 1992. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
"1195704" does not match any TLC rule or City law section. It is more likely a record or license number typed into the wrong field (two entries, February 2013). Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
"451934" does not match any TLC rule or City law section. It is more likely a license, summons or record number typed into the wrong field (one entry, December 2012). Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
For-hire vehicle picking up passengers without a prearranged trip — another spelling of §19-507(A)(4) (For-hire vehicle picking up passengers without a prearranged trip).
"A/C" is the usual short form of "Administrative Code", the NYC law that includes the TLC's licensing and unlicensed-activity rules (Title 19, Chapter 5). No section number was written, so the exact charge can't be told. Four charges, January to May 1992. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
Operating a vehicle for hire without a TLC vehicle license — another spelling of §19-506(B)(1) (Operating a vehicle for hire without a TLC vehicle license).
"AC" most likely stands for "Administrative Code", meaning the NYC Administrative Code (the City law on taxis and for-hire vehicles is Title 19, Chapter 5), but no section number was written, so the exact charge can't be told. 41 charges, 1992–2001. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
City TLC law on enforcement and unlicensed for-hire activity — another spelling of §19-506 (City TLC law on enforcement and unlicensed for-hire activity).
Operating a vehicle for hire without a TLC vehicle license — another spelling of §19-506(B)(1) (Operating a vehicle for hire without a TLC vehicle license).
AGT-SETTL is not a rule number. It appears in TLC records from about 2008 to 2026, usually next to real charges on the same summons (for example a Chapter 80 traffic charge), with no fine listed against it. It most likely marks a charge that was resolved by a settlement agreement with the TLC rather than decided at a hearing. Check the other charge codes on your summons to see what was alleged.
Not a rule (internal record marker)NYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
"B" alone is not a TLC rule. It is probably a subdivision letter (for example the "b" of a longer code such as 506B) that lost its section number when typed in. We can't tell which section. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
"B/C" on its own is not a rule number. Its 46 charges are from February to June 1992, overlapping the months when the code "506B/C" was being written (April to June 1992), so it is most likely the same thing with the section number left off: NYC Administrative Code §19-506(b) (no TLC vehicle license) and (c) (taxi or livery markings or advertising without licenses). This is a best reading, not confirmed.
Most likely NYC Admin. Code §19-506(b) and (c)NYC Administrative Code Title 19, Chapter 5 (readable mirror; official text: American Legal Publishing)
"B1" is not a complete rule number: it looks like the "(b)(1)" part of a longer code, such as §19-506(b)(1) (unlicensed vehicle for hire), with the section left off. The charges are from June 1992. We can't confirm which section was meant. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
"DR.PU" is not a rule number. It may be shorthand for something like "driver pick-up" (for example, an improper pickup), but that is a guess. One entry with no usable date. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
"FOR M" is not a rule number. It looks like a word cut off by the field length (perhaps "for M..." or "form"). One entry with no usable date; we can't tell what was charged. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
"FOR O" is not a rule number. It looks like a word cut off by the field length (perhaps "for o..."). One entry with no usable date; we can't tell what was charged. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
"FY" is not a TLC rule or law section. It was used on about five summonses in early 1992, mostly against companies. Its meaning is unknown; it may be an internal abbreviation. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
"G" alone is not a TLC rule. It is probably a subdivision letter whose section number was left off when the summons was entered (March 1992). We can't tell which section was meant. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
"HACKL" is most likely short for "hack license", the common name for a TLC driver license. It is a note, not a rule number, so it doesn't say exactly what was charged; it may have been about a missing or invalid license. One entry, November 1997. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
Driving a TLC-licensed vehicle for hire without a TLC driver license — another spelling of §506D (Driving a TLC-licensed vehicle for hire without a TLC driver license).
"NO HA" is not a rule number. It is probably a cut-off note such as "no hack license", meaning the driver had no TLC driver license, but that can't be confirmed. One entry, May 1997. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
"OFF." is not a rule number. It may be short for "off duty", "offense" or "officer", but there is no way to tell from the record. One entry with no usable date. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
"P999" is not a TLC rule. Codes made of 9s are typical placeholders in record systems. One entry, May 1992. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
"Q" is not a TLC rule or law section. It appears once, in 1998, and is most likely a typing error or placeholder in the charge-code field. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
"REFUN" is not a rule number. It is probably a cut-off word such as "refund" (for example, an overcharge that had to be paid back) or a misspelled "refusal", but the record doesn't say. One entry. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
"SEIZ" is most likely short for "seizure": a note that the vehicle was seized, as City law allows for unlicensed for-hire vehicles (NYC Admin. Code §19-506(h)). It is not itself a charge. The entries are from May 1992. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
"THRU" is not a rule number. It was probably part of a range ("rule X thru Y") that lost its numbers when entered, in January 1992. We can't tell what was charged. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
This entry is the letters "UU" followed by a slash, typed where a charge code should be. It does not match any TLC rule or law section, so there is no rule text to explain. OATH's public records show it on 1 charge, with a violation date of Dec 3, 1997. Written by TLC inspectors. Your summons or hearing decision describes the specific conduct.
Not a rule number (data-entry placeholder or typo)TLC – Old Rule Book Chapters (nyc.gov)
"V" is not a TLC rule. It appears once, in February 1992. It may stand for "violation" or be a stray roman numeral (five) from a longer code, but we can't tell. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
"X" is not a TLC rule or law section. It was typed into the charge-code field on about 16 summonses from 1995 to 1997, likely as a placeholder or marker. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
This entry is a person's first name, typed into the charge-code field by mistake (two entries, February 2013). It is not a rule. Look at the other charge codes and the written description on your summons to see what was actually alleged.
Not a rule numberNYC Open Data: OATH Hearings Division Case Status (charge records)
This entry is a single backslash, typed where a charge code should be. It does not match any TLC rule or law section, so there is no rule text to explain. OATH's public records show it on 1 charge, with a violation date in Aug 1998. Written by TLC inspectors. Your summons or hearing decision describes the specific conduct.
Not a rule number (data-entry placeholder or typo)TLC – Old Rule Book Chapters (nyc.gov)
This entry is a row of backslashes, typed where a charge code should be. It does not match any TLC rule or law section, so there is no rule text to explain. OATH's public records show it on 1 charge, with a violation date in Apr 1999. Written by TLC inspectors. Your summons or hearing decision describes the specific conduct.
Not a rule number (data-entry placeholder or typo)TLC – Old Rule Book Chapters (nyc.gov)
This entry is a single backtick character, typed where a charge code should be. It does not match any TLC rule or law section, so there is no rule text to explain. OATH's public records show it on 2 charges, with violation dates between May 17, 1992 and Dec 9, 1997. Written by TLC inspectors. Your summons or hearing decision describes the specific conduct.
Not a rule number (data-entry placeholder or typo)TLC – Old Rule Book Chapters (nyc.gov)
This entry is a single curly bracket, typed where a charge code should be. It does not match any TLC rule or law section, so there is no rule text to explain. OATH's public records show it on 1 charge, with a violation date in Apr 1992. Written by TLC inspectors. Your summons or hearing decision describes the specific conduct.
Not a rule number (data-entry placeholder or typo)TLC – Old Rule Book Chapters (nyc.gov)
Green cab owner did not answer or comply with TLC communications — another spelling of §82-16(J)(1) (Green cab owner did not answer or obey a TLC directive).
Street hail livery rule (same as the standard spelling) — another spelling of §82-17(G)(1) (Green cab owner did not pay surcharge remitted by drivers into SHL fund).
Green cab (street hail livery) owner rule, written with a stray symbol — another spelling of §82-16(J)(1) (Green cab owner did not answer or obey a TLC directive).
Green cab (street hail livery) owner rule, written with a stray symbol — another spelling of §82-17(G)(1) (Green cab owner did not pay surcharge remitted by drivers into SHL fund).
Fines and points are shown only where they were checked against the official penalty text. Counts come from NYC Open Data — OATH Hearings Division Case Status; some dates in that data are entry errors. Look up your summons to see the charges on it, or scan it for a plain-English explanation.
TLC Help is not a law firm and is not affiliated with the NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission or OATH. Explanations on this site are general information, not legal advice. Legal representation is provided by independent attorneys and OATH-registered representatives in our network.