Elite Corporation Ready Mix v. Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Elite Corporation Ready Mix v. Martinez

1 A.D.2d 436, 766 N.Y.S.2d 901

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

DecidedNovember 10, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 436 (Elite Corporation Ready Mix v. Martinez) 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

Elite Corporation Ready Mix v. Martinez, 1 A.D.2d 436, 766 N.Y.S.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review so much of a determination of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles dated November 15, 2001, as affirmed so much of a determination of an Administrative Law Judge of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, dated January 10, 2001, as, after a hearing, found that the petitioner violated New York City Traffic Rules and Regulations (34 RCNY) § 4-15 (b) (9) and (10), and imposed a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed insofar as reviewed, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

Judicial review of a determination rendered by an administrative body after a hearing is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence upon the entire record (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]; Matter of Liuzzo v State of New York Dept. of Motor Vehs. Appeals Bd., 209 AD2d 618 [1994]). A reviewing court will not undertake the functions of weighing evidence and assessing credibility, as those issues are committed to the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge (see Matter of Scara-Mix, Inc. v Martinez, 305 AD2d 418 [2003]).

The determination that the petitioner violated New York City Traffic Rules and Regulations (34 RCNY) § 4-15 (b) (9) and (10) is supported by substantial evidence, and we decline to disturb it. Smith, J.E, McGinity, H. Miller and Rivera, 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 so much of a determination of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles dated November 15, 2001, as affirmed so much of a determination of an Administrative Law Judge of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, dated January 10, 2001, as, after a hearing, found that the petitioner violated New York City Traffic Rules and Regulations (34 RCNY) § 4-15 (b) (9) and (10), and imposed a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed insofar as reviewed, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

Judicial review of a determination rendered by an administrative body after a hearing is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence upon the entire record (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]; Matter of Liuzzo v State of New York Dept. of Motor Vehs. Appeals Bd., 209 AD2d 618 [1994]). A reviewing court will not undertake the functions of weighing evidence and assessing credibility, as those issues are committed to the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge (see Matter of Scara-Mix, Inc. v Martinez, 305 AD2d 418 [2003]).

The determination that the petitioner violated New York City Traffic Rules and Regulations (34 RCNY) § 4-15 (b) (9) and (10) is supported by substantial evidence, and we decline to disturb it. Smith, J.E, McGinity, H. Miller and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 436, 766 N.Y.S.2d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elite-corporation-ready-mix-v-martinez-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack