Kahn v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles

134 A.D.2d 594, 521 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50802
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 30, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 134 A.D.2d 594 (Kahn v. State of New York 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
Kahn v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles, 134 A.D.2d 594, 521 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Department of Motor Vehicles, dated May 22, 1986, which sustained a finding of an Administrative Law Judge that the petitioner had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d) (1) and imposed a fine of $50.

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

The determination that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d) (1) is supported by substantial evidence in the record and must be confirmed (see, Matter of McKenzie v Fisher, 39 NY2d 103). The petitioner’s challenge to the administrative determination rests primarily upon an issue of credibility which was for the hearing body to resolve (see, Matter of Silberfarb v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs., 60 NY2d 979; Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269, 270-271). The testimony of the police officer who issued the summons to the petitioner was not incredible as a matter of law, and was sufficient by itself to sustain the respondent’s burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 227 [1]) that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d) (1) by driving his vehicle through a steady red signal.

We further find that the petitioner was accorded a fair and full review upon his administrative appeal before the respondent. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Lochwyn v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs.
2018 NY Slip Op 1467 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
D'Antonio v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles
73 A.D.3d 1053 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Fischer v. Appeals Board of New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
49 A.D.3d 643 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Resciniti v. Department of Motor Vehicles
255 A.D.2d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Minicucci v. Adduci
178 A.D.2d 913 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Miranda v. Adduci
172 A.D.2d 526 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Ballen v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
147 A.D.2d 560 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 A.D.2d 594, 521 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kahn-v-state-of-new-york-department-of-motor-vehicles-nyappdiv-1987.