Dipoumbi v. Fiala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dipoumbi v. Fiala

117 A.D.3d 642, 986 N.Y.S.2d 333

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

DecidedMay 29, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.3d 642 (Dipoumbi v. Fiala) 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

Dipoumbi v. Fiala, 117 A.D.3d 642, 986 N.Y.S.2d 333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board, dated August 26, 2009, which affirmed a determination of an administrative law judge (ALJ) finding, after a hearing, that petitioner was guilty of failing to stop for a stop sign and failing to wear his corrective lenses, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Lucy Billings, J.], entered Mar. 24, 2010), dismissed, without costs.

The determination is supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). The determination turned entirely on the relative credibility of petitioner and the officer who issued the summonses, and we find no reason to disturb the ALJ’s determination in this respect. Petitioner was not denied his right to counsel (cf. Matter of Watson v Fiala, 101 AD3d 1649, 1650-1651 [4th Dept 2012]), but expressly chose to proceed with the hearing when his counsel failed to appear due to illness. Petitioner’s remaining arguments are unpreserved and, in any event, are unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Determination of the Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board, dated August 26, 2009, which affirmed a determination of an administrative law judge (ALJ) finding, after a hearing, that petitioner was guilty of failing to stop for a stop sign and failing to wear his corrective lenses, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Lucy Billings, J.], entered Mar. 24, 2010), dismissed, without costs.

The determination is supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). The determination turned entirely on the relative credibility of petitioner and the officer who issued the summonses, and we find no reason to disturb the ALJ’s determination in this respect. Petitioner was not denied his right to counsel (cf. Matter of Watson v Fiala, 101 AD3d 1649, 1650-1651 [4th Dept 2012]), but expressly chose to proceed with the hearing when his counsel failed to appear due to illness. Petitioner’s remaining arguments are unpreserved and, in any event, are unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.3d 642, 986 N.Y.S.2d 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dipoumbi-v-fiala-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack