Sanderspree v. Hults

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanderspree v. Hults

25 A.D.2d 702, 268 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4708

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 28, 1966·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Aulisi, J.

In this proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR, the petitioner seeks to review and annul the determination of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, revoking his driver’s license because of his refusal to submit to a chemical blood test (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1194). The proceeding has been transferred to this court for disposition pursuant to CPLR 7804 (subd. [g]). The language and purpose of section 1194 is clear and unequivocal. An operator of a motor vehicle may lose his license if he drives while intoxicated and he permits a test of his blood or if he refuses to permit the test. Upon the record before us, we have no alternative but to agree with respondent. The evidence, in our opinion, is sufficient to sustain a finding (1) that the Deputy Sheriff who arrested petitioner had reasonable grounds to believe petitioner was driving while intoxicated and (2) that petitioner refused to submit to the test prescribed by statute. Determination confirmed, without costs.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Aulisi, J.

In this proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR, the petitioner seeks to review and annul the determination of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, revoking his driver’s license because of his refusal to submit to a chemical blood test (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1194). The proceeding has been transferred to this court for disposition pursuant to CPLR 7804 (subd. [g]). The language and purpose of section 1194 is clear and unequivocal. An operator of a motor vehicle may lose his license if he drives while intoxicated and he permits a test of his blood or if he refuses to permit the test. Upon the record before us, we have no alternative but to agree with respondent. The evidence, in our opinion, is sufficient to sustain a finding (1) that the Deputy Sheriff who arrested petitioner had reasonable grounds to believe petitioner was driving while intoxicated and (2) that petitioner refused to submit to the test prescribed by statute. Determination confirmed, without costs.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Sanderspree v. Hults, 25 A.D.2d 702, 268 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4708 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

25 A.D.2d 702 (Sanderspree v. Hults) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related