Aaron v. Tofany

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aaron v. Tofany

33 A.D.2d 922, 307 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5652

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 26, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 922 (Aaron v. Tofany) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aaron v. Tofany, 33 A.D.2d 922, 307 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review respondent’s determination, dated May 5, 1969, which suspended petitioner’s driving license for 30 days for a violation of section 510 (subd. 3, par. [e]) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (gross negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle). Determination annulled, on the law, with costs. In our opinion, respondent’s finding of gross negligence was not supported by substantial evidence and the resulting suspension for 30 days constituted an abuse of discretion (Matter of Kops v. Hults, 29 A D 2d 687; Matter of [Harris v. Kelly, 9 A D 2d 785; Matter of Ghersan v. Hults, 13 A D 2d 1007; Matter of Sappern v. Hults, 11 A D 2d 776; Matter of Disney v. Hults, 16 A D 2d 494; Matter of Sheridan v. Fletcher, 270 App. Div. 29). Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.'

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review respondent’s determination, dated May 5, 1969, which suspended petitioner’s driving license for 30 days for a violation of section 510 (subd. 3, par. [e]) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (gross negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle). Determination annulled, on the law, with costs. In our opinion, respondent’s finding of gross negligence was not supported by substantial evidence and the resulting suspension for 30 days constituted an abuse of discretion (Matter of Kops v. Hults, 29 A D 2d 687; Matter of [Harris v. Kelly, 9 A D 2d 785; Matter of Ghersan v. Hults, 13 A D 2d 1007; Matter of Sappern v. Hults, 11 A D 2d 776; Matter of Disney v. Hults, 16 A D 2d 494; Matter of Sheridan v. Fletcher, 270 App. Div. 29). Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 922, 307 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aaron-v-tofany-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack