In Piaseczny v. Bartolo, 271 A.D.2d 267 (1st Dept 2000), the court similarly interpreted Administrative Code 19-530(l). Piaseczny v. Bartolo involved an action wherein plaintiff, a pedestrian, commenced a plenary action against, inter alia, a taxicab agent as a result of injuries sustain when he was struck by a taxicab. Id. The court found the agent could not be held liable because there was no evidence showing that the agent was involved with "the operation of the cab, or was the owner of either the cab or the medallion that was attached to the cab." (Id. at 268.) The court construed the meaning of the Administrative Code to provide that a medallion owner may be held vicariously liable for the operation of the vehicle.