Muratore v. Hults

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Muratore v. Hults

24 A.D.2d 830, 264 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3279

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 21, 1965·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Determination unani[831]*831mously modified by reducing the penalty from revocation of the license to a 30-day suspension and as so modified, determination confirmed, without costs. Memorandum: This article 78 proceeding to review the determination of respondent, after a hearing, revoking petitioner’s driver’s license was transferred to this court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (subd. [g]). The determination that petitioner violated section 1154 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law by failing to use due care to avoid striking a pedestrian meets the substantial evidence requirement. However, in our opinion, respondent abused his discretion in imposing the revocation of the license as a penalty. (CPLR 7803, subd. 3.) The punishment imposed was “so disproportionate to the offense,,in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.” (Matter of Stolz v. Board of Regents, 4 A D 2d 361, 364.) (Review of determination of respondent revoking petitioner’s license to drive, transferred by order of Monroe Special Term.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman and Del Veechio, JJ.

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

Determination unani[831]*831mously modified by reducing the penalty from revocation of the license to a 30-day suspension and as so modified, determination confirmed, without costs. Memorandum: This article 78 proceeding to review the determination of respondent, after a hearing, revoking petitioner’s driver’s license was transferred to this court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (subd. [g]). The determination that petitioner violated section 1154 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law by failing to use due care to avoid striking a pedestrian meets the substantial evidence requirement. However, in our opinion, respondent abused his discretion in imposing the revocation of the license as a penalty. (CPLR 7803, subd. 3.) The punishment imposed was “so disproportionate to the offense,,in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.” (Matter of Stolz v. Board of Regents, 4 A D 2d 361, 364.) (Review of determination of respondent revoking petitioner’s license to drive, transferred by order of Monroe Special Term.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman and Del Veechio, JJ.

Muratore v. Hults, 24 A.D.2d 830, 264 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3279 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

24 A.D.2d 830 (Muratore v. Hults) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related