Du Pree v. Foschio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Du Pree v. Foschio

89 A.D.2d 800, 453 N.Y.S.2d 477, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17920

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

DecidedJuly 9, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 89 A.D.2d 800 (Du Pree v. Foschio) 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

Du Pree v. Foschio, 89 A.D.2d 800, 453 N.Y.S.2d 477, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner contends that he was improperly denied the opportunity to consult with his attorney on whether or not to submit to a breathalyzer test, and asks that the order revoking his operator’s license, based on his refusal to take the test, be vacated. Even if petitioner’s right to counsel was denied as he claims, the revocation order would stand. A license revocation is an administrative proceeding and the holder of an operator’s license cannot condition his consent to take the test on his first consulting with counsel (Matter of Finocchairo v Kelly, 11 NY2d 58, cert den 370 US 912; Matter of Brady v Tofany, 36 AD2d 987, affd 29 NY2d 680). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolf, J.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner contends that he was improperly denied the opportunity to consult with his attorney on whether or not to submit to a breathalyzer test, and asks that the order revoking his operator’s license, based on his refusal to take the test, be vacated. Even if petitioner’s right to counsel was denied as he claims, the revocation order would stand. A license revocation is an administrative proceeding and the holder of an operator’s license cannot condition his consent to take the test on his first consulting with counsel (Matter of Finocchairo v Kelly, 11 NY2d 58, cert den 370 US 912; Matter of Brady v Tofany, 36 AD2d 987, affd 29 NY2d 680). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolf, J.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.2d 800, 453 N.Y.S.2d 477, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/du-pree-v-foschio-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack