Cannings v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cannings v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board

84 A.D.3d 610, 922 N.Y.S.2d 779

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 19, 2011·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J), entered February 8, 2010, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s June 1, 2009 determination affirming petitioner’s speeding conviction, granted the petition to the extent of remanding the matter for further proceedings before a different administrative law judge, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Transfer to this Court was properly denied by the IAS court because petitioner’s due process claims “are dispositive and sufficient to ‘terminate’ this proceeding within the meaning of CPLR 7804 (g)” (Earl v Turner, 303 AD2d 282, 282 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 506 [2003]; McCarter v Franco, 227 AD2d 358, 358-359 [1996]). Indeed, review of the administrative hearing transcript reveals that petitioner was not afforded his due process rights (see Matter of Jackson v Hernandez, 63 AD3d 64, 67-69 [2009]; Matter of Hecht v Monaghan, 307 NY 461, 470 [1954]).

[611] We have reviewed appellant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Freedman, Richter and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J), entered February 8, 2010, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s June 1, 2009 determination affirming petitioner’s speeding conviction, granted the petition to the extent of remanding the matter for further proceedings before a different administrative law judge, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Transfer to this Court was properly denied by the IAS court because petitioner’s due process claims “are dispositive and sufficient to ‘terminate’ this proceeding within the meaning of CPLR 7804 (g)” (Earl v Turner, 303 AD2d 282, 282 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 506 [2003]; McCarter v Franco, 227 AD2d 358, 358-359 [1996]). Indeed, review of the administrative hearing transcript reveals that petitioner was not afforded his due process rights (see Matter of Jackson v Hernandez, 63 AD3d 64, 67-69 [2009]; Matter of Hecht v Monaghan, 307 NY 461, 470 [1954]).

[611] We have reviewed appellant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Freedman, Richter and Román, JJ.

Cannings v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board, 84 A.D.3d 610, 922 N.Y.S.2d 779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

84 A.D.3d 610 (Cannings 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