Matter of Geary v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Geary v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York

453 N.E.2d 533, 59 N.Y.2d 950, 466 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3253

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 30, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by31 cases

This text of 453 N.E.2d 533 (Matter of Geary v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Geary v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York, 453 N.E.2d 533, 59 N.Y.2d 950, 466 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3253 (N.Y. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), *952 order affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the opinion by Justice John J. Callahan at the Appellate Division (92 AD2d 38). We note, however, that no inference should be drawn that, had substantial prejudice resulted to petitioner from respondent’s delay in scheduling the hearing, respondent would have been ousted of jurisdiction to revoke. In such circumstance, there would have been “at most an ‘erroneous exercise of authority’ since such delay would not divest the [commissioner] of jurisdiction.” (Matter of Sarkisian Bros. v State Div. of Human Rights, 48 NY2d 816, 818.)

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), *952 order affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the opinion by Justice John J. Callahan at the Appellate Division (92 AD2d 38). We note, however, that no inference should be drawn that, had substantial prejudice resulted to petitioner from respondent’s delay in scheduling the hearing, respondent would have been ousted of jurisdiction to revoke. In such circumstance, there would have been “at most an ‘erroneous exercise of authority’ since such delay would not divest the [commissioner] of jurisdiction.” (Matter of Sarkisian Bros. v State Div. of Human Rights, 48 NY2d 816, 818.)

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

453 N.E.2d 533, 59 N.Y.2d 950, 466 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-geary-v-commr-of-motor-vehicles-of-the-state-of-new-york-ny-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack