Cummings v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

87 A.D.3d 1347, 929 N.Y.2d 920
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 30, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 87 A.D.3d 1347 (Cummings 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
Cummings v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, 87 A.D.3d 1347, 929 N.Y.2d 920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Memorandum:

We conclude in this CPLR article 78 proceeding that, contrary to petitioner’s contention, the determination to suspend her driver’s license is supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181-182 [1978]; Matter of Guarino v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 80 AD3d 697 [2011]). The evidence presented at the administrative hearing established that petitioner was making a left-hand turn in her vehicle at a T-intersection when she struck and killed a pedestrian. Petitioner contends that the evidence did not establish, however, that the pedestrian was in the crosswalk at the time of the accident and thus that her alleged violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 is not supported by substantial evidence. The record belies that contention. According to both the accident report completed by a police officer and the testimony of the officer at the hearing, petitioner told the officer that she struck a pedestrian who was crossing the street “in [the] crosswalk from west to east.” Petitioner’s further contention that the Administrative Law Judge should have adduced additional evidence before rendering her decision is raised for the first time on appeal, and “ ‘[t]he scope of [this] CPLR article 78 proceeding, following an administrative hearing, is limited to review of the issues raised and addressed in that hearing’ ” (Matter of Vicari v Wing, 244 AD2d 974, 976 [1997]). Present — Scudder, EJ., Peradotto, Garni, Gorski and Martoche, JJ.

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

Related

QUINTANA, ROBERT v. CITY OF BUFFALO
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
ANDERSON, SHARON v. CITY OF BUFFALO
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Anderson v. City of Buffalo
114 A.D.3d 1160 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Quintana v. City of Buffalo
114 A.D.3d 1222 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 A.D.3d 1347, 929 N.Y.2d 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cummings-v-new-york-state-department-of-motor-vehicles-nyappdiv-2011.