Resciniti v. Department of Motor Vehicles

255 A.D.2d 589, 684 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12891
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 30, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 589 (Resciniti v. Department of Motor Vehicles) 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
Resciniti v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 255 A.D.2d 589, 684 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Appeals Board, Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York, dated August 27, 1997, which affirmed a decision of an Administrative Law Judge of the State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles, dated March 15, 1995, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner guilty of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d) (1), and imposed a fine of $50 and a surcharge of $25.

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

The determination that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d) (1) is supported by substantial evidence and must be confirmed (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176; Matter of Ballen v Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 147 AD2d 560). The petitioner’s challenge to the administrative determination rests upon an issue of credibility which was primarily for the fact-finder to resolve (see, Matter of Kahn v State of N. Y. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 134 AD2d 594).

The minor discrepancy in the police officer’s description of the petitioner’s vehicle (a black 1993 Toyota sedan) as a black 1991 Toyota sedan, is “insufficient to overcome the great weight that is accorded to the Administrative Law Judge’s findings” (Matter of Toplitz v Adduci, 162 AD2d 271). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Lochwyn v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs.
2018 NY Slip Op 1467 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
D'Antonio v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles
73 A.D.3d 1053 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Fischer v. Appeals Board of New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
49 A.D.3d 643 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Ferguson Hauling Corp. v. Martinez
11 A.D.3d 214 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
255 A.D.2d 589, 684 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/resciniti-v-department-of-motor-vehicles-nyappdiv-1998.