Matter of Arken v. New York City Dept. of Fin.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Arken v. New York City Dept. of Fin.

127 A.D.3d 853, 4 N.Y.S.3d 904

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

DecidedApril 8, 2015

Docket2013-08076

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.3d 853 (Matter of Arken v. New York City Dept. of Fin.) 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

Matter of Arken v. New York City Dept. of Fin., 127 A.D.3d 853, 4 N.Y.S.3d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the City of New York, Department of Finance, Parking Violations Adjudication Division, dated October 10, 2012, affirming a determination of an Administrative Law Judge dated June 20, 2012, which, after a hearing, inter alia, reinstated two previously dismissed parking violations, and imposed a penalty.

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

“To annul an administrative determination made after a hearing directed by law at which evidence is taken, a court must conclude that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the determination” (Matter of Mannino v Department of Motor Vehs. of State of N.Y.-Traffic Violations Div., 101 AD3d 880, 880 [2012]; see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38 *854 [2001]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination under review (see Matter of Peterson v State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehs., 90 AD3d 1055 [2011]; 19 RCNY 39-10 [j]). Accordingly, the determination must be confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Rivera, J.R, Sgroi, Maltese and LaSalle, 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 City of New York, Department of Finance, Parking Violations Adjudication Division, dated October 10, 2012, affirming a determination of an Administrative Law Judge dated June 20, 2012, which, after a hearing, inter alia, reinstated two previously dismissed parking violations, and imposed a penalty.

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

“To annul an administrative determination made after a hearing directed by law at which evidence is taken, a court must conclude that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the determination” (Matter of Mannino v Department of Motor Vehs. of State of N.Y.-Traffic Violations Div., 101 AD3d 880, 880 [2012]; see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38 *854 [2001]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination under review (see Matter of Peterson v State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehs., 90 AD3d 1055 [2011]; 19 RCNY 39-10 [j]). Accordingly, the determination must be confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Rivera, J.R, Sgroi, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 853, 4 N.Y.S.3d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-arken-v-new-york-city-dept-of-fin-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack