Edenwald Contracting Co. v. Department of Motor Vehicles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edenwald Contracting Co. v. Department of Motor Vehicles

249 A.D.2d 474, 671 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4242

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

DecidedApril 20, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 474 (Edenwald Contracting Co. v. 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

Edenwald Contracting Co. v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 249 A.D.2d 474, 671 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4242 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York, Appeals Board of the Administrative Adjudication Bureau, dated May 21, 1996, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 385 (9) and imposed a fine.

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

The determination that the petitioner violated Vehicle and [475]*475Traffic Law § 385 (9) was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Willets Point Contr. Corp. v Department of Motor Vehicles, 227 AD2d 411). The petitioner is responsible for the knowledge and deeds of its agents acting within the scope of their employment (see, Matter of Allied Sanitation v Adduci, 226 AD2d 195; cf., Matter of Accorso v Appeals Bd. of Admin. Adjudication Bur., 185 AD2d 611).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for review or without merit. Pizzuto, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, 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 Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York, Appeals Board of the Administrative Adjudication Bureau, dated May 21, 1996, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 385 (9) and imposed a fine.

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

The determination that the petitioner violated Vehicle and [475]*475Traffic Law § 385 (9) was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Willets Point Contr. Corp. v Department of Motor Vehicles, 227 AD2d 411). The petitioner is responsible for the knowledge and deeds of its agents acting within the scope of their employment (see, Matter of Allied Sanitation v Adduci, 226 AD2d 195; cf., Matter of Accorso v Appeals Bd. of Admin. Adjudication Bur., 185 AD2d 611).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for review or without merit. Pizzuto, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 474, 671 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edenwald-contracting-co-v-department-of-motor-vehicles-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack