R. Bertil Peterson v. State
90 A.D.3d 1055, 934 N.Y.2d 837
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 27, 2011·Published·Cited by 3 cases
Opinion
The determination that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-c is supported by substantial evidence. The petitioner’s challenge to the administrative determination rests upon an issue of credibility which was primarily for the fact-finder to resolve, and we see no basis to overturn the factfinder’s determination (see Matter of Hildreth v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. Appeals Bd., 83 AD3d 838 [2011]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
R. Bertil Peterson v. State, 90 A.D.3d 1055, 934 N.Y.2d 837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).
90 A.D.3d 1055 (R. Bertil Peterson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Matter of Arken v. New York City Dept. of Fin.
127 A.D.3d 853 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Snitow v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs.
121 A.D.3d 1008 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Matter of Matievskaya v. State of New York Dept. of Motor Vehicles
121 A.D.3d 694 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)