Babcock v. Melton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Babcock v. Melton

57 A.D.2d 554, 393 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11505

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

DecidedApril 4, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 A.D.2d 554 (Babcock 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

Babcock v. Melton, 57 A.D.2d 554, 393 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review respondent’s determination which, after a hearing, revoked petitioner’s driver’s license. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. The police officer testified that he had requested petitioner to submit to a chemical test for intoxication and that he had read [555]*555the warning printed on the "Alcohol/Drug Influence Report” form to the petitioner. The form was properly admitted into evidence, since it was admitted only to indicate the exact words of the warning (see Matter of Mistler v Tofany, 39 AD2d 710). The admission into evidence of testimony that petitioner refused to submit to the chemical test was also proper, since it was the refusal itself which formed the basis for revocation of petitioner’s license (see Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1194, subd 2). Hargett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review respondent’s determination which, after a hearing, revoked petitioner’s driver’s license. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. The police officer testified that he had requested petitioner to submit to a chemical test for intoxication and that he had read [555]*555the warning printed on the "Alcohol/Drug Influence Report” form to the petitioner. The form was properly admitted into evidence, since it was admitted only to indicate the exact words of the warning (see Matter of Mistler v Tofany, 39 AD2d 710). The admission into evidence of testimony that petitioner refused to submit to the chemical test was also proper, since it was the refusal itself which formed the basis for revocation of petitioner’s license (see Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1194, subd 2). Hargett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 554, 393 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/babcock-v-melton-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack