Ferrara Equipment, Inc. v. Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ferrara Equipment, Inc. v. Martinez

305 A.D.2d 411, 758 N.Y.S.2d 502, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5161

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 5, 2003·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Appeals Board of the State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles, dated October 2, 2001, which affirmed a determination of an Administrative Law Judge of the State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles, dated November 6, 2000, [412]*412which, 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, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Judicial review of a determination rendered by an administrative body after a hearing is limited to whether that 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 may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by the Hearing Officer where there is conflicting evidence and room for choice exists” (Matter of McQueeney v Dutchess County Sheriff, 223 AD2d 710, 711 [1996]).

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 find no basis for disturbing it. Altman, J.P., Smith, McGinity and Cozier, 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 Appeals Board of the State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles, dated October 2, 2001, which affirmed a determination of an Administrative Law Judge of the State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles, dated November 6, 2000, [412]*412which, 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, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Judicial review of a determination rendered by an administrative body after a hearing is limited to whether that 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 may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by the Hearing Officer where there is conflicting evidence and room for choice exists” (Matter of McQueeney v Dutchess County Sheriff, 223 AD2d 710, 711 [1996]).

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 find no basis for disturbing it. Altman, J.P., Smith, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Ferrara Equipment, Inc. v. Martinez, 305 A.D.2d 411, 758 N.Y.S.2d 502, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

305 A.D.2d 411 (Ferrara Equipment, Inc. v. Martinez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related