Apicella v. Melton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Apicella v. Melton

65 A.D.2d 555, 409 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13186

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A.D.2d 555 (Apicella v. Melton) 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

Apicella v. Melton, 65 A.D.2d 555, 409 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of Motor Vehicles which, after a hearing, revoked the petitioner’s driver’s license because of his refusal to submit to a chemical test to determine the alcoholic content of his blood. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. The findings of the respondent were based on substantial evidence. There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that a failure of the arresting officer to file an accusatory instrument charging him with violation of section 1192 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law serves to establish that the officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe that he had been driving in violation of the provisions of that section. Damiani, J. P., Suozzi, Shapiro and Cohalan, 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 of Motor Vehicles which, after a hearing, revoked the petitioner’s driver’s license because of his refusal to submit to a chemical test to determine the alcoholic content of his blood. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. The findings of the respondent were based on substantial evidence. There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that a failure of the arresting officer to file an accusatory instrument charging him with violation of section 1192 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law serves to establish that the officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe that he had been driving in violation of the provisions of that section. Damiani, J. P., Suozzi, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.2d 555, 409 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/apicella-v-melton-nyappdiv-1978.