Lewenstein v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lewenstein v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

6 A.D.3d 715, 775 N.Y.S.2d 537

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

DecidedApril 26, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 715 (Lewenstein 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

Lewenstein v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, 6 A.D.3d 715, 775 N.Y.S.2d 537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Appeals of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles dated April 18, 2002, which affirmed the finding of an Administrative Law Judge, after a hearing, that the petitioner was guilty of violating New York City Traffic Rule (34 RCNY) § 4-03 (a) (1).

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

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the respondent’s finding that he was guilty of violating a traffic rule requiring a motorist to yield to a pedestrian was supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 445 [1987]). Moreover, under the circumstances, the Administrative Law Judge providently exercised his discretion in denying the petitioner’s request for a continuance (see Reo v Klarman, 259 AD2d 477 [1999]). Altman, J.P, Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, 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 Board of Appeals of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles dated April 18, 2002, which affirmed the finding of an Administrative Law Judge, after a hearing, that the petitioner was guilty of violating New York City Traffic Rule (34 RCNY) § 4-03 (a) (1).

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

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the respondent’s finding that he was guilty of violating a traffic rule requiring a motorist to yield to a pedestrian was supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 445 [1987]). Moreover, under the circumstances, the Administrative Law Judge providently exercised his discretion in denying the petitioner’s request for a continuance (see Reo v Klarman, 259 AD2d 477 [1999]). Altman, J.P, Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 715, 775 N.Y.S.2d 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewenstein-v-new-york-state-department-of-motor-vehicles-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack