Dienna v. Appeals Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dienna v. Appeals Board

262 A.D.2d 409, 691 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6358

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

DecidedJune 7, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 409 (Dienna v. Appeals Board) 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

Dienna v. Appeals Board, 262 A.D.2d 409, 691 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Appeals Board of the Administrative Adjudication Bureau, dated December 19, 1997, affirming a decision of an Administrative Law Judge of the Department of Motor Vehicles, dated August 12, 1996, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner guilty of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 and imposed a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

“It is well settled that judicial review of a determination rendered by an administrative body after a hearing is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence upon the entire record” (Matter of Liuzzo v State of N. Y. Dept. of Motor Vehicles Appeals Bd., 209 AD2d 618; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176). Issues of credibility are for the Administrative Law Judge to determine, and “it is not the role of this [c]ourt to weigh the evidence presented” (Matter of Liuzzo v State of New York Dept. of Motor Vehicles Appeals Bd., supra, at 618; see, Matter of Simpson v Wolansky, 38 NY2d 391).

The determination here that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 is supported by substantial evidence, and there is no reason to disturb it.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Appeals Board of the Administrative Adjudication Bureau, dated December 19, 1997, affirming a decision of an Administrative Law Judge of the Department of Motor Vehicles, dated August 12, 1996, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner guilty of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 and imposed a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

“It is well settled that judicial review of a determination rendered by an administrative body after a hearing is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence upon the entire record” (Matter of Liuzzo v State of N. Y. Dept. of Motor Vehicles Appeals Bd., 209 AD2d 618; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176). Issues of credibility are for the Administrative Law Judge to determine, and “it is not the role of this [c]ourt to weigh the evidence presented” (Matter of Liuzzo v State of New York Dept. of Motor Vehicles Appeals Bd., supra, at 618; see, Matter of Simpson v Wolansky, 38 NY2d 391).

The determination here that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 is supported by substantial evidence, and there is no reason to disturb it.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 409, 691 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dienna-v-appeals-board-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack