Matter of Diawara v. Rahman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Diawara v. Rahman

134 A.D.3d 443, 19 N.Y.S.3d 743

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

DecidedDecember 3, 2015

Docket16295 402502/12

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.3d 443 (Matter of Diawara v. Rahman) 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 Diawara v. Rahman, 134 A.D.3d 443, 19 N.Y.S.3d 743 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Taxi and Limousine Tribunal, dated July 3, 2012, finding that petitioner violated several provisions of the rules of the Taxi and Limousine Commission governing taxi drivers and imposing a fine of $1,250, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Paul Wooten, J.], entered Dec. 20, 2013), dismissed, without costs.

*444 The determination is supported by substantial evidence, including the testimony of the complaining witness, whom the hearing officer found credible (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]).

Petitioner’s various arguments that he was denied due process at the administrative hearing, and that the hearing was otherwise improper, are, for the most part, not properly before the court as they were not raised at the administrative level (see Matter of Torres v New York City Hous. Auth., 40 AD3d 328, 330 [1st Dept 2007]), and, in any event, are meritless. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Determination of the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Taxi and Limousine Tribunal, dated July 3, 2012, finding that petitioner violated several provisions of the rules of the Taxi and Limousine Commission governing taxi drivers and imposing a fine of $1,250, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Paul Wooten, J.], entered Dec. 20, 2013), dismissed, without costs.

*444 The determination is supported by substantial evidence, including the testimony of the complaining witness, whom the hearing officer found credible (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]).

Petitioner’s various arguments that he was denied due process at the administrative hearing, and that the hearing was otherwise improper, are, for the most part, not properly before the court as they were not raised at the administrative level (see Matter of Torres v New York City Hous. Auth., 40 AD3d 328, 330 [1st Dept 2007]), and, in any event, are meritless. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 443, 19 N.Y.S.3d 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-diawara-v-rahman-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack