Arrazola v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles, Appeals Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arrazola v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles, Appeals Board

129 A.D.3d 1444, 12 N.Y.S.3d 680

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 12, 2015·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Thomas A. Stander, J.), entered October 9, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judg[1445] ment confirmed the determination of respondent to deny the application of petitioner for a driver’s license and dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondent’s determination pursuant to 15 NYCRR 136.5 (b) (2) denying her application for a driver’s license. Supreme Court properly confirmed the determination and dismissed the petition on the ground that the determination was “neither irrational nor arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Sacandaga Park Civic Assn. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Northampton, 296 AD2d 807, 809 [2002]). Petitioner’s facial challenge to 15 NYCRR part 136 is not preserved for our review, and we therefore do not address it (see Matter of U.S. Energy Dev. Corp. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 118 AD3d 1381, 1383 [2014]).

Present — Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Sconiers and DeJoseph, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Thomas A. Stander, J.), entered October 9, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judg[1445] ment confirmed the determination of respondent to deny the application of petitioner for a driver’s license and dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondent’s determination pursuant to 15 NYCRR 136.5 (b) (2) denying her application for a driver’s license. Supreme Court properly confirmed the determination and dismissed the petition on the ground that the determination was “neither irrational nor arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Sacandaga Park Civic Assn. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Northampton, 296 AD2d 807, 809 [2002]). Petitioner’s facial challenge to 15 NYCRR part 136 is not preserved for our review, and we therefore do not address it (see Matter of U.S. Energy Dev. Corp. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 118 AD3d 1381, 1383 [2014]).

Present — Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Sconiers and DeJoseph, JJ.

Arrazola v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles, Appeals Board, 129 A.D.3d 1444, 12 N.Y.S.3d 680 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

129 A.D.3d 1444 (Arrazola v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles, Appeals Board) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related