Toplitz v. Adduci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Toplitz v. Adduci

162 A.D.2d 271

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

DecidedJune 19, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 A.D.2d 271 (Toplitz v. Adduci) 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

Toplitz v. Adduci, 162 A.D.2d 271 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition pursuant to CPLR article 78, transferred by order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.), entered February 23, 1990, seeking to annul and vacate a determination of the respondent Department of Motor Vehicles, made at the conclusion of a hearing held January 24, 1989, which found that petitioner had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d) (1), unanimously denied, the proceeding is dismissed, and the determination confirmed, with costs.

Our review of the record reveals that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that on September 16, 1988, at approximately 8:00 a.m., petitioner, while driving a Lincoln, failed to stop for a red light at the intersection of 12th Avenue and 29th Street in Manhattan. As such, the determination should not be disturbed. (300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179.) The minor discrepancies concerning the color of the vehicle (cf, Matter of Reape v Adduci, 151 AD2d 290) and the time that elapsed between the officer’s first observation of the vehicle and the issuance of the traffic summons are insufficient to overcome the great weight that is accorded to the Administrative Law Judge’s findings. (See, Matter of Simpson v Wolansky, 38 NY2d 391, 394.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

Petition pursuant to CPLR article 78, transferred by order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.), entered February 23, 1990, seeking to annul and vacate a determination of the respondent Department of Motor Vehicles, made at the conclusion of a hearing held January 24, 1989, which found that petitioner had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d) (1), unanimously denied, the proceeding is dismissed, and the determination confirmed, with costs.

Our review of the record reveals that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that on September 16, 1988, at approximately 8:00 a.m., petitioner, while driving a Lincoln, failed to stop for a red light at the intersection of 12th Avenue and 29th Street in Manhattan. As such, the determination should not be disturbed. (300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179.) The minor discrepancies concerning the color of the vehicle (cf, Matter of Reape v Adduci, 151 AD2d 290) and the time that elapsed between the officer’s first observation of the vehicle and the issuance of the traffic summons are insufficient to overcome the great weight that is accorded to the Administrative Law Judge’s findings. (See, Matter of Simpson v Wolansky, 38 NY2d 391, 394.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toplitz-v-adduci-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack