Treutlein v. Jackson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Treutlein v. Jackson

271 A.D.2d 614, 706 N.Y.S.2d 709, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4298

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

DecidedApril 17, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 614 (Treutlein v. Jackson) 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

Treutlein v. Jackson, 271 A.D.2d 614, 706 N.Y.S.2d 709, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the Appeals Board of the Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York dated November 24, 1997, which granted the petitioner’s appeal from a determination of an Administrative Law Judge of the Department of Motor Vehicles dated January 27, 1997, after a hearing, that the petitioner had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (b) and imposed a penalty, to the extent of directing a new hearing, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated January 12, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is modified by adding thereto a provision directing that the new hearing on the charge against the petitioner is to be held before a different Administrative Law Judge; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the respondent.

The petitioner was issued a summons for speeding on State Route 27 in Suffolk County. After a hearing before Department of Motor Vehicles Administrative Law Judge Scheurer, the charge was sustained and, inter alia, a fine in the sum of $175 was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner appealed to the Appeals Board of the Department of Motor Vehicles (hereinafter the Appeals Board) seeking, inter alia, dismissal of the summons. The Appeals Board agreed with the petitioner’s contention that the transcript of the hearing was so defective that it precluded meaningful review. The petitioner’s appeal was granted to the extent that the determination of the Administrative Law Judge was vacated, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding, seeking to overturn that determination, inter alia, on the ground that it was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, he was not entitled to the dismissal of the summons. Except in unusual instances, [615]*615e.g., in certain prison disciplinary proceedings, the proper remedy for a defective or improper administrative hearing is remittal for a new hearing (see, Matter of Girard v City of Glens Falls, 173 AD2d 113; Matter of Robinson v Blum, 73 AD2d 691). However, under all of the circumstances, the new hearing should be held before a different Administrative Law Judge.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., S. Miller, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the Appeals Board of the Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York dated November 24, 1997, which granted the petitioner’s appeal from a determination of an Administrative Law Judge of the Department of Motor Vehicles dated January 27, 1997, after a hearing, that the petitioner had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (b) and imposed a penalty, to the extent of directing a new hearing, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated January 12, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is modified by adding thereto a provision directing that the new hearing on the charge against the petitioner is to be held before a different Administrative Law Judge; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the respondent.

The petitioner was issued a summons for speeding on State Route 27 in Suffolk County. After a hearing before Department of Motor Vehicles Administrative Law Judge Scheurer, the charge was sustained and, inter alia, a fine in the sum of $175 was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner appealed to the Appeals Board of the Department of Motor Vehicles (hereinafter the Appeals Board) seeking, inter alia, dismissal of the summons. The Appeals Board agreed with the petitioner’s contention that the transcript of the hearing was so defective that it precluded meaningful review. The petitioner’s appeal was granted to the extent that the determination of the Administrative Law Judge was vacated, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding, seeking to overturn that determination, inter alia, on the ground that it was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, he was not entitled to the dismissal of the summons. Except in unusual instances, [615]*615e.g., in certain prison disciplinary proceedings, the proper remedy for a defective or improper administrative hearing is remittal for a new hearing (see, Matter of Girard v City of Glens Falls, 173 AD2d 113; Matter of Robinson v Blum, 73 AD2d 691). However, under all of the circumstances, the new hearing should be held before a different Administrative Law Judge.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., S. Miller, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 614, 706 N.Y.S.2d 709, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/treutlein-v-jackson-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack