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

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 702 (Sanderspree v. Hults) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 702, 268 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanderspree-v-hults-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack