Vezza v. Passidomo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vezza v. Passidomo

119 A.D.2d 827, 501 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55769

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

DecidedApril 28, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 119 A.D.2d 827 (Vezza v. Passidomo) 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

Vezza v. Passidomo, 119 A.D.2d 827, 501 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent dated September 20, 1984, which revoked the petitioner’s license to operate a motor vehicle on the ground of his refusal to submit to a chemical breathalyzer test following his arrest for driving while intoxicated.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

[828]*828While we regard the case as close because of the petitioner’s physical condition at the time of his refusal to submit to a chemical breathalyzer test, we cannot say that the determination under review was not supported by substantial evidence. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Bracken, 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 a determination of the respondent dated September 20, 1984, which revoked the petitioner’s license to operate a motor vehicle on the ground of his refusal to submit to a chemical breathalyzer test following his arrest for driving while intoxicated.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

[828]*828While we regard the case as close because of the petitioner’s physical condition at the time of his refusal to submit to a chemical breathalyzer test, we cannot say that the determination under review was not supported by substantial evidence. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 827, 501 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vezza-v-passidomo-nyappdiv-1986.