Blake v. Hults

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blake v. Hults

17 A.D.2d 632, 230 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8665

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 632 (Blake v. Hults) 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

Blake v. Hults, 17 A.D.2d 632, 230 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to review and annul a determination of the respondent Commissioner of Motor Vehicles denying the petitioner’s application for restoration or reissuanee of his operator’s license which had been previously revoked pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 71 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law [now § 519, subd. 2, par. (e)], said petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated September 18, 1961, dismissing his petition. Order affirmed, without costs, and without prejudice to a new application by petitioner at any time for an operator’s license, if he be so advised. In our opinion, the record supports the exercise of discretion by the Commissioner (Matter of Fink v. Cole, 1 N Y 2d 48; Matter of Hyatt v. Hults, 23 Misc 2d 538). However, it was improper for the Commissioner to fix a definite future date when petitioner might reapply for a license (Matter of Boiko v. Hults, 13 A D 2d 888; cf. Matter of Christiaansen v. Kelly, 19 A D 2d 664). Consequently the petitioner, if he be so advised, may reapply for an operator’s license at any time. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to review and annul a determination of the respondent Commissioner of Motor Vehicles denying the petitioner’s application for restoration or reissuanee of his operator’s license which had been previously revoked pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 71 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law [now § 519, subd. 2, par. (e)], said petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated September 18, 1961, dismissing his petition. Order affirmed, without costs, and without prejudice to a new application by petitioner at any time for an operator’s license, if he be so advised. In our opinion, the record supports the exercise of discretion by the Commissioner (Matter of Fink v. Cole, 1 N Y 2d 48; Matter of Hyatt v. Hults, 23 Misc 2d 538). However, it was improper for the Commissioner to fix a definite future date when petitioner might reapply for a license (Matter of Boiko v. Hults, 13 A D 2d 888; cf. Matter of Christiaansen v. Kelly, 19 A D 2d 664). Consequently the petitioner, if he be so advised, may reapply for an operator’s license at any time. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 632, 230 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blake-v-hults-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack