Tornheim v. Appeals Board

82 A.D.3d 1253, 919 N.Y.2d 863
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 29, 2011·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The determination of the Administrative Law Judge that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-c (2) (a) is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Desvignes v State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehs., 71 AD3d 766 [2010]; Matter of Hall v Swartz, 61 AD3d 868 [2009]). The Appeals Board of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles properly declined to consider evidence that was not presented at the hearing, but instead, was presented for the first time on the petitioner’s administrative appeal (see Matter of Charles Birdoff & Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 204 AD2d 630, 631 [1994]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Covello, J.E, Dickerson, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

Tornheim v. Appeals Board, 82 A.D.3d 1253, 919 N.Y.2d 863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

82 A.D.3d 1253 (Tornheim v. Appeals Board) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Matter of Hickey v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs.
142 A.D.3d 668 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Matievskaya v. State of New York Dept. of Motor Vehicles
121 A.D.3d 694 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)