Suffolk Materials Corp. v. Martinez

16 A.D.3d 514, 791 N.Y.S.2d 171, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2592

This text of 16 A.D.3d 514 (Suffolk Materials Corp. v. Martinez) 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
Suffolk Materials Corp. v. Martinez, 16 A.D.3d 514, 791 N.Y.S.2d 171, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

[515]*515Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Appeals of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, dated February 13, 2003, confirming the findings of an Administrative Law Judge, made after a hearing, that the petitioner violated New York City Traffic Rules and Regulations (34 RCNY) § 4-15 (b) (9) and (10), and Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401 (7) (F) (b), and imposing a fine of $11,250.

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

The petitioner, the owner of a vehicle alleged to be overweight in violation of the New York City Traffic Rules and Regulations, waived its jurisdictional objections when it appeared and participated in the administrative hearing on the merits (see Matter of Clinton Ave. Constr. Corp. v Martinez, 8 AD3d 273, 274 [2004]; Matter of United States Power Squadrons v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 84 AD2d 318, 325 [1981], affd 59 NY2d 401 [1983]). In any event, service of the summons upon the driver of the vehicle was sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over the petitioner (see Quadrozzi Equip. Leasing Corp. v Martinez, 13 AD3d 635 [2004]; Matter of IESI NY Corp. v Martinez, Inc., 8 AD3d 667, 668 [2004]; Matter of Sureway Towing, Inc. v Martinez, 8 AD3d 490, 491 [2004]; Matter of Clinton Ave. Constr. Corp. v Martinez, supra).

The petitioner’s remaining contention is unpreserved for judicial review, and in any event, is without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ, concur.

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

Related

United States Power Squadrons v. State Human Rights Appeal Board
452 N.E.2d 1199 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
Clinton Avenue Construction Corp. v. Martinez
8 A.D.3d 273 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Sureway Towing, Inc. v. Martinez
8 A.D.3d 490 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
IESI NY Corp. v. Martinez
8 A.D.3d 667 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Quadrozzi Equipment Leasing Corp. v. Martinez
13 A.D.3d 635 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
United States Power Squadrons v. State Human Rights Appeal Board
84 A.D.2d 318 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 A.D.3d 514, 791 N.Y.S.2d 171, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suffolk-materials-corp-v-martinez-nyappdiv-2005.