Sheehan v. Passidomo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sheehan v. Passidomo

122 A.D.2d 869, 505 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59361

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 15, 1986·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York, [870] dated December 20, 1984, which, after a hearing, inter alia, found the petitioner guilty of a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 417, imposed a $525 civil penalty, and suspended the petitioner’s automobile dealer’s license for a period of 45 days.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The Administrative Law Judge did not abuse his discretion in considering the opinion testimony of a senior automotive facilities inspector for the Division of Vehicle Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles (see, State Administrative Procedure Act § 306 [1]). We find that the Administrative Law Judge’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and had a rational basis (see, Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269). The Commissioner’s suspension of the petitioner’s automobile dealer’s license for a 45-day period was not excessive (see, Matter of Ansbro v McGuire, 49 NY2d 872, 874). Moreover, this sanction was proper since the petitioner was found to have violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 417, a statute enacted to protect the safety of the motoring public as well as the vehicle purchaser (see, Pierce v International Harvester Co., 61 AD2d 255, 259-260). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York, [870] dated December 20, 1984, which, after a hearing, inter alia, found the petitioner guilty of a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 417, imposed a $525 civil penalty, and suspended the petitioner’s automobile dealer’s license for a period of 45 days.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The Administrative Law Judge did not abuse his discretion in considering the opinion testimony of a senior automotive facilities inspector for the Division of Vehicle Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles (see, State Administrative Procedure Act § 306 [1]). We find that the Administrative Law Judge’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and had a rational basis (see, Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269). The Commissioner’s suspension of the petitioner’s automobile dealer’s license for a 45-day period was not excessive (see, Matter of Ansbro v McGuire, 49 NY2d 872, 874). Moreover, this sanction was proper since the petitioner was found to have violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 417, a statute enacted to protect the safety of the motoring public as well as the vehicle purchaser (see, Pierce v International Harvester Co., 61 AD2d 255, 259-260). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Sheehan v. Passidomo, 122 A.D.2d 869, 505 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

122 A.D.2d 869 (Sheehan v. Passidomo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related