Kirk v. Department of Motor Vehicles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kirk v. Department of Motor Vehicles

22 A.D.3d 240, 801 N.Y.S.2d 533

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

DecidedOctober 6, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 240 (Kirk 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

Kirk v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 22 A.D.3d 240, 801 N.Y.S.2d 533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Department of Motor Vehicles, dated July 12, 2004, finding that petitioner made an illegal U-turn in violation of Ve[241]*241hiele and Traffic Law § 1110 (a), and imposing a penalty of two points on her license and a fine of $70, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Kibbie F. Payne, J.], entered December 27, 2004) dismissed, without costs.

The proceeding must be dismissed as against the State of New York, which is not a “body or officer” within the meaning of CPLR 7802 (a) against whom a CPLR article 78 proceeding may be brought (Matter of Capruso v New York State Police, 300 AD2d 27, 28 [2002]). On the merits, substantial evidence, specifically the testimony of the police officer who stopped petitioner, supports the finding that petitioner made an illegal U-turn (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). No basis exists to disturb respondent’s findings of credibility (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]; Matter of Grossberg v Christian, 245 AD2d 118 [1997]). Nor does the record support petitioner’s claims that the Administrative Law Judge was biased and hostile toward her and that his leading questions deprived her of a fair hearing (see Matter of Warder v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y., 53 NY2d 186, 197 [1981], cert denied 454 US 1125 [1981]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Sullivan and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Department of Motor Vehicles, dated July 12, 2004, finding that petitioner made an illegal U-turn in violation of Ve[241]*241hiele and Traffic Law § 1110 (a), and imposing a penalty of two points on her license and a fine of $70, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Kibbie F. Payne, J.], entered December 27, 2004) dismissed, without costs.

The proceeding must be dismissed as against the State of New York, which is not a “body or officer” within the meaning of CPLR 7802 (a) against whom a CPLR article 78 proceeding may be brought (Matter of Capruso v New York State Police, 300 AD2d 27, 28 [2002]). On the merits, substantial evidence, specifically the testimony of the police officer who stopped petitioner, supports the finding that petitioner made an illegal U-turn (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). No basis exists to disturb respondent’s findings of credibility (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]; Matter of Grossberg v Christian, 245 AD2d 118 [1997]). Nor does the record support petitioner’s claims that the Administrative Law Judge was biased and hostile toward her and that his leading questions deprived her of a fair hearing (see Matter of Warder v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y., 53 NY2d 186, 197 [1981], cert denied 454 US 1125 [1981]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Sullivan and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 240, 801 N.Y.S.2d 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirk-v-department-of-motor-vehicles-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack