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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 25, 2015·No. 2014-04894·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

125 A.D.3d 972 (Matter of Milord v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related