Old TLC Rule 54-13(a)(2): Taxi Moving Violation (Pre-2016)

In short: 54-13(a)(2) is an old TLC code for a non-hazardous moving violation by a taxi or green cab (SHL) driver. TLC added its own fine on top of the traffic law: $200 if you pleaded guilty before a hearing, $300 if found guilty after one. Chapter 54 ended on October 25, 2016, and today the same kind of violation is charged under 80-13(a)(2), which now adds points for repeat violations.

What the rule said

The last version of chapter 54, rule 54-13(a), "Comply with Traffic Laws": taxi drivers, and any authorized driver of a street hail livery while driving one, "must comply with all applicable traffic laws, rules, and regulations" and "are subject to additional fines and penalties that will be imposed by the Commission for violating the traffic laws as follows." The rule then set three tiers:

So (a)(2) was the catch-all for moving violations not on the hazardous list. Typical examples would be turning or lane rules that the traffic law covers but that are not among the hazardous items such as speeding, red lights or stop signs. The summons itself names the underlying traffic rule.

For FHV drivers, chapter 55 had a matching rule, 55-13(a)(2), with the same $200/$300 fine.

Hazardous or not: which tier was it?

The tier decided the fine, so it helps to know the hazardous list. Chapter 54's 54-13(a)(3) named these as hazardous moving violations, each with TLC points: speeding (3 to 8 points by how far over the limit), failing to stop for a school bus (5), following too closely (4), inadequate brakes (4 in your own vehicle, 2 in an employer's), failing to yield (3), traffic signal (3), stop sign (3), yield sign (3), railroad crossing (3), improper passing (3), unsafe lane change (3), driving left of center (3), driving in the wrong direction (3), and leaving the scene of an accident involving property damage or injury to an animal (3).

Any moving violation not on that list fell into 54-13(a)(2). Parking and standing violations were 54-13(a)(1). If an old record shows (a)(2) for something that sounds hazardous, or the reverse, the decision is what counts; the tier on the summons was the charge, not necessarily the finding.

Then and now

The current rule keeps the same fine for a first violation but builds in escalation:

The old 54-13(a)(2) had none of that: a flat fine, no TLC points listed, no suspension. If you are comparing an old record with a new summons, don't assume the penalties match. Note that DMV points from the underlying traffic conviction are a separate matter; see DMV points for TLC drivers.

How often it appeared

About 15,100 summonses list 54-13(a)(2) first. Roughly one in six (about 2,440) were written by Port Authority Police, who patrol the airports and other Port Authority facilities. The OATH data has no usable location field, so it can't say where. Its successor, 80-13(a)(2), was the single most common first charge on taxi/FHV summonses at OATH in 2021–2025. More on Port Authority enforcement: Port Authority TLC summonses.

One old code that outlived chapter 54

Its sibling for parking and standing, 54-13(a)(1), kept appearing in the OATH data until June 2021, years after chapter 54 ended. We don't know why; it may reflect late filing or keying of older summonses. If you see a chapter 54 code on a recent summons, check the violation date and ask whether the right rule was cited. Today's stationary rule is 80-13(a)(1).

Why TLC added its own fine

The rule's wording explains the double hit: drivers "are subject to additional fines and penalties that will be imposed by the Commission for violating the traffic laws." So a taxi driver could face the traffic ticket itself (and any DMV points from it) and a separate TLC summons under 54-13(a)(2). The current rule, 80-13(a), keeps that structure.

What to do with an old 54-13(a)(2) record

• Look it up. Use the summons number in a lookup to see how it was decided.
• Paid? TLC penalties are paid to TLC, not OATH. An unpaid finding can still matter.
• Defaulted? The Admin Code gives two years from a default to move to vacate it (§19-506.1(e)); for a 2016-era default that time has passed, so ask a lawyer about options.

Points to discuss with your lawyer

General information only:

• Is an old finding being counted in a current case? The current rule's step-ups use 15-month windows.
• Was the violation date before October 26, 2016? If so, chapter 54 governed it.
• Is the underlying traffic rule correctly identified on the summons?