Motor Network, Ltd. v. Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Motor Network, Ltd. v. Martinez

29 A.D.3d 911, 814 N.Y.S.2d 545

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

DecidedMay 23, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 911 (Motor Network, Ltd. v. Martinez) 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

Motor Network, Ltd. v. Martinez, 29 A.D.3d 911, 814 N.Y.S.2d 545 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Raymond E Martinez, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, dated July 1, 2002, which denied the petitioner’s application for [912]*912renewal and re-issuance of a special registration license plate, which was determined by judgment dated April 12, 2004, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), entered December 9, 2004, which denied its application for an award of an attorney’s fee and for costs pursuant to CPLR article 86.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in finding that the respondent’s position was substantially justified (see CPLR 8601 [a]; Matter of Newman v Wing, 12 AD3d 515 [2004]). “ ‘[T]he mere fact that the government has lost the underlying case on the merits does not require that an attorney’s fee be awarded’ ” (Matter of Newman v Wing, supra at 516, quoting Matter of McCrimmon v Dowling, 247 AD2d 620, 621 [1998]). Absent an abuse of discretion, a determination by the Supreme Court that the respondent’s position was substantially justified is entitled to deference (see Matter of New York State Clinical Lab. Assn. v Kaladjian, 85 NY2d 346, 356 [1995]). Accordingly, we affirm. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Raymond E Martinez, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, dated July 1, 2002, which denied the petitioner’s application for [912]*912renewal and re-issuance of a special registration license plate, which was determined by judgment dated April 12, 2004, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), entered December 9, 2004, which denied its application for an award of an attorney’s fee and for costs pursuant to CPLR article 86.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in finding that the respondent’s position was substantially justified (see CPLR 8601 [a]; Matter of Newman v Wing, 12 AD3d 515 [2004]). “ ‘[T]he mere fact that the government has lost the underlying case on the merits does not require that an attorney’s fee be awarded’ ” (Matter of Newman v Wing, supra at 516, quoting Matter of McCrimmon v Dowling, 247 AD2d 620, 621 [1998]). Absent an abuse of discretion, a determination by the Supreme Court that the respondent’s position was substantially justified is entitled to deference (see Matter of New York State Clinical Lab. Assn. v Kaladjian, 85 NY2d 346, 356 [1995]). Accordingly, we affirm. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 911, 814 N.Y.S.2d 545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/motor-network-ltd-v-martinez-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack