Ambus, Inc. v. Commissioner, New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ambus, Inc. v. Commissioner, New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

279 A.D.2d 627, 719 N.Y.S.2d 702, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 938

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 627 (Ambus, Inc. v. Commissioner, New York State Department of Motor Vehicles) 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

Ambus, Inc. v. Commissioner, New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, 279 A.D.2d 627, 719 N.Y.S.2d 702, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 938 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner, New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, dated April 30, 1999, which, after a hearing, sustained various charges against the petitioners and imposed penalties.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law, without costs or disbursements, to the extent that the determination with respect to Charge No. 9 of Case No. BDCU96-182 against Ambus, Inc., d/b/a Winston American Coach, and Charge No. 5 of Case No. BDCU96-183 against Winston American Transportation, Inc., which found violations of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509-g (1) and 15 NYCRR 6.11 and 6.12, is annulled, the penalties imposed with respect to those charges are vacated, those charges are dismissed, the determination is otherwise confirmed, and the proceeding is otherwise dismissed on the merits.

Judicial review of a determination rendered by an administrative body after a hearing is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence upon the entire record (see, CPLR 7803 [4]; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. Of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176; Matter of Liuzzo v State of N. Y. Dept. of Motor Vehicles Appeals Bd., 209 AD2d 618). The respondent’s determination imposing penalties against the petitioners for their failure to file a pre-employment physical examination of a driver purportedly in their employ was not based upon substantial evidence, inasmuch as it was uncontroverted that the petitioners did not, in fact, hire the person named in the charges. Accordingly, the charges and penalties associated therewith must be dismissed.

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J. P., Luciano, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner, New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, dated April 30, 1999, which, after a hearing, sustained various charges against the petitioners and imposed penalties.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law, without costs or disbursements, to the extent that the determination with respect to Charge No. 9 of Case No. BDCU96-182 against Ambus, Inc., d/b/a Winston American Coach, and Charge No. 5 of Case No. BDCU96-183 against Winston American Transportation, Inc., which found violations of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509-g (1) and 15 NYCRR 6.11 and 6.12, is annulled, the penalties imposed with respect to those charges are vacated, those charges are dismissed, the determination is otherwise confirmed, and the proceeding is otherwise dismissed on the merits.

Judicial review of a determination rendered by an administrative body after a hearing is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence upon the entire record (see, CPLR 7803 [4]; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. Of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176; Matter of Liuzzo v State of N. Y. Dept. of Motor Vehicles Appeals Bd., 209 AD2d 618). The respondent’s determination imposing penalties against the petitioners for their failure to file a pre-employment physical examination of a driver purportedly in their employ was not based upon substantial evidence, inasmuch as it was uncontroverted that the petitioners did not, in fact, hire the person named in the charges. Accordingly, the charges and penalties associated therewith must be dismissed.

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J. P., Luciano, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 627, 719 N.Y.S.2d 702, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ambus-inc-v-commissioner-new-york-state-department-of-motor-vehicles-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack