Matter of Donmez v. New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs

139 A.D.3d 596, 30 N.Y.S.3d 820
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Matter of Donmez v. New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs. Read the opinion of the Court — 139 A.D.3d 595
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 26, 2016·No. 1252 401875/13 401873/13·Published

Opinion

Determination of respondent Department of Consumer Affairs, dated June 28, 2013, which upheld the decision of the administration law judge finding, after a hearing, that petitioner committed two violations of the Administrative Code of the City of New York and imposing a fine of $500 per violation, 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 [Peter H. Moulton, J.], entered Feb. 14, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner violated two pedicab regulations is supported by substantial evidence and was made in accordance with the law (see e.g. Matter of Carniol v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 126 AD3d 409, 411 [1st Dept 2015]). The fines imposed for the violations do not shock *597 our sense of fairness (see Matter of San Miguel Auto Repair Corp. v State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehs., 111 AD3d 422 [1st Dept 2013]). We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kahn, JJ.

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

Matter of Donmez v. New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 139 A.D.3d 596, 30 N.Y.S.3d 820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

139 A.D.3d 596 (Matter of Donmez v. New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Matter of Carniol v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn.
126 A.D.3d 409 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)