Cipollaro v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cipollaro v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

101 A.D.3d 508, 954 N.Y.2d 877

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 508 (Cipollaro v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles) 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

Cipollaro v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, 101 A.D.3d 508, 954 N.Y.2d 877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Respondent’s determination was supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the administrative law judge (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]). Moreover, petitioner’s argument that he did not have fair warning that the area where he was pulled over and ticketed was not a designated truck route, is unpreserved as it was not raised at the administrative hearing (see Matter of Palette v City of New York, 208 AD2d 427 [1st Dept 1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 803 [1995]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and Clark, JJ.

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

Respondent’s determination was supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the administrative law judge (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]). Moreover, petitioner’s argument that he did not have fair warning that the area where he was pulled over and ticketed was not a designated truck route, is unpreserved as it was not raised at the administrative hearing (see Matter of Palette v City of New York, 208 AD2d 427 [1st Dept 1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 803 [1995]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 508, 954 N.Y.2d 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cipollaro-v-new-york-state-department-of-motor-vehicles-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack