Matter of Milord v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Milord v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs.

125 A.D.3d 972, 1 N.Y.S.3d 854

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 2015

Docket2014-04894

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 A.D.3d 972 (Matter of Milord v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs.) 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 Milord v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 125 A.D.3d 972, 1 N.Y.S.3d 854 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board dated May 28, 2013, which confirmed the determination of an administrative law judge dated January 18, 2013, after a hearing, finding that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 392, and imposed a penalty.

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

Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing at which evidence was taken is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence based upon the entire record (see CPLR 7803 [4]). Moreover, the courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by an administrative agency where there is conflicting evidence and room for choice exists (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 444 [1987]).

Here, substantial evidence supports the determination of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 392 (see Matter of Wagner v Fiala, 113 AD3d 694 [2014]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Roman, 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 New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board dated May 28, 2013, which confirmed the determination of an administrative law judge dated January 18, 2013, after a hearing, finding that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 392, and imposed a penalty.

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

Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing at which evidence was taken is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence based upon the entire record (see CPLR 7803 [4]). Moreover, the courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by an administrative agency where there is conflicting evidence and room for choice exists (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 444 [1987]).

Here, substantial evidence supports the determination of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 392 (see Matter of Wagner v Fiala, 113 AD3d 694 [2014]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.3d 972, 1 N.Y.S.3d 854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-milord-v-new-york-state-dept-of-motor-vehs-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack