Bejsovec v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bejsovec v. Kelly

4 A.D.2d 702, 164 N.Y.S.2d 138, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4956

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

DecidedJune 24, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 702 (Bejsovec v. Kelly) 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

Bejsovec v. Kelly, 4 A.D.2d 702, 164 N.Y.S.2d 138, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4956 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of respondent suspending for 60 days the chauffeur’s license of petitioner for an alleged violation of subdivision 1 of section 56 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The proceeding was transferred to this court (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1296). Determination annulled, with $10 costs and disbursements. There was no substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner violated the said statutory provision (cf. Matter of Weisinger v. Macduff, 285 App. Div. 607, 611; Matter of' Bietrichsen v. Macduff, 280 App. Div. 1016). Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur; Beldock, J., dissents and votes to affirm on the ground that there was substantial evidence to support the determination.

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

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of respondent suspending for 60 days the chauffeur’s license of petitioner for an alleged violation of subdivision 1 of section 56 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The proceeding was transferred to this court (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1296). Determination annulled, with $10 costs and disbursements. There was no substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner violated the said statutory provision (cf. Matter of Weisinger v. Macduff, 285 App. Div. 607, 611; Matter of' Bietrichsen v. Macduff, 280 App. Div. 1016). Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur; Beldock, J., dissents and votes to affirm on the ground that there was substantial evidence to support the determination.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 702, 164 N.Y.S.2d 138, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bejsovec-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack