Umberg v. Tofany

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Umberg v. Tofany

60 A.D.2d 872, 401 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9909

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.2d 872 (Umberg v. Tofany) 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

Umberg v. Tofany, 60 A.D.2d 872, 401 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondent’s determination, which, after a hearing, revoked petitioner’s motor vehicle operator’s license. Determination confirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and proceeding dismissed on the merits. The arresting officer testified that the petitioner’s breath smelled of alcohol, his clothes were in disarray and he staggered. Petitioner’s contention that he was not warned of the consequences of his refusal to submit to a chemical sobriety test was an issue of fact and credibility determined at the revocation hearing. The refusal by petitioner to submit to the test was violative of subdivision 2 of section 1194 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and furnished grounds for revocation of the license (see Matter of Babcock v Melton, 57 AD2d 554; Snyder v Melton, 60 AD2d 575). Latham, J. P., Damiani, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondent’s determination, which, after a hearing, revoked petitioner’s motor vehicle operator’s license. Determination confirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and proceeding dismissed on the merits. The arresting officer testified that the petitioner’s breath smelled of alcohol, his clothes were in disarray and he staggered. Petitioner’s contention that he was not warned of the consequences of his refusal to submit to a chemical sobriety test was an issue of fact and credibility determined at the revocation hearing. The refusal by petitioner to submit to the test was violative of subdivision 2 of section 1194 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and furnished grounds for revocation of the license (see Matter of Babcock v Melton, 57 AD2d 554; Snyder v Melton, 60 AD2d 575). Latham, J. P., Damiani, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.2d 872, 401 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/umberg-v-tofany-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack