Tornheim v. Appeals Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tornheim v. Appeals Board

82 A.D.3d 1253, 919 N.Y.2d 863

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 1253 (Tornheim v. Appeals Board) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 1253, 919 N.Y.2d 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tornheim-v-appeals-board-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack