CITY OF NEW YORK, 8771Aplfres, v. TRANSPORTAZUMAH LLC, defap

8771-. CITY OF NEW YORK, 8771Aplfres, v. TRANSPORTAZUMAH LLC, defap Steven Diaz, Washington, D.C., of the bars of the State of California and the District of Columbia, admitted pro hac vice, for ap — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth S. Natrella of counsel), for res — Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered April 13, 2011, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its complaint, declaring defendant in violation of Administrative Code of City of NY §6-202 and permanently enjoining defendant from operating its bus service within the City of New York without obtaining a franchise, and to dismiss the counterclaims and affirmative defenses, and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered October 4, 2011, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate the April 13, 2011 order and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant challenges the enforceability of Administrative Code §6-202, which states, “It shall be unlawful for any omnibus route or routes for public use … to be operated in or upon any street within the city until and unless a franchise or right therefor shall be obtained from the board of estimate.” Defendant contends that New York state courts do not have jurisdiction to enforce this provision against it because the provision is preempted by a federal law that states that “no State or political subdivision thereof … shall enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to intrastate rates, intrastate routes, or intrastate services of any freight forwarder or broker” (49 USC §14501[b][1]; see Matter of Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 32 AD3d 943, 944 [2d Dept 2006]). However, as 49 USC §14501(b) is captioned “Freight forwarders and brokers,” while subsection (a) is captioned “Motor carriers of passengers,” we find that “broker” in subsection (b) (1) refers to a broker for a freight forwarder, not a broker for a motor carrier of passengers.