Koenigsberg v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board

8 A.D.3d 383, 777 N.Y.S.2d 745, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7896
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 7, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 383 (Koenigsberg v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board) 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
Koenigsberg v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board, 8 A.D.3d 383, 777 N.Y.S.2d 745, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board, dated November 25, 2002, confirming a determination of an Administrative Law Judge, dated May 8, 2002, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (d) and imposed a $60 fine and a $30 surcharge.

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

The determination that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (d) by speeding is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Mataragas v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 6 AD3d 537 [2004]; Matter of Gentile v Jackson, 273 AD2d 235 [2000]). The Administrative Law Judge properly relied on the police officer’s testimony regarding his visual estimate of the speed of the petitioner’s car, which, together with the reading from the laser device in the officer’s car, were sufficient to sustain the petitioner’s conviction (see Matter of Neiman v State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehs. Appeals Bd., 265 AD2d 558 [1999]; Matter of Mataragas v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., supra; Matter of Gentile v Jackson, supra).

[384]*384The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Altman, Mastro and. Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Makhoul v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles
2019 NY Slip Op 2099 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Molinsky v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
105 A.D.3d 960 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Kobel v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board
85 A.D.3d 916 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Guarino v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
80 A.D.3d 697 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Lloyd Hall v. Swartz
61 A.D.3d 868 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Clarke v. Martinez
14 A.D.3d 612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 A.D.3d 383, 777 N.Y.S.2d 745, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koenigsberg-v-state-of-new-york-department-of-motor-vehicles-appeals-board-nyappdiv-2004.