Empire State Datsun, Inc. v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Empire State Datsun, Inc. v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

92 A.D.2d 561, 459 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16791

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.2d 561 (Empire State Datsun, Inc. v. New York State 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

Empire State Datsun, Inc. v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, 92 A.D.2d 561, 459 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondent’s determination, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of violating various-regulations of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and suspended petitioner’s repair shop registration for a period of 15 days, and imposed a civil penalty of $300. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. We have reviewed the record, and find that the respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence. In addition, on the record before us, we are not able to say that the penalty imposed was “ ‘ “so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” ’ ” (Matter of Pell v Board ofEduc., 34 NY2d 222, 233). Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Thompson and Boyers, 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 respondent’s determination, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of violating various-regulations of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and suspended petitioner’s repair shop registration for a period of 15 days, and imposed a civil penalty of $300. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. We have reviewed the record, and find that the respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence. In addition, on the record before us, we are not able to say that the penalty imposed was “ ‘ “so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” ’ ” (Matter of Pell v Board ofEduc., 34 NY2d 222, 233). Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Thompson and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.2d 561, 459 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/empire-state-datsun-inc-v-new-york-state-department-of-motor-vehicles-nyappdiv-1983.