Wattecamps v. Hults

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wattecamps v. Hults

13 A.D.2d 1009, 216 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10135

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

DecidedJune 19, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.2d 1009 (Wattecamps v. Hults) 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

Wattecamps v. Hults, 13 A.D.2d 1009, 216 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10135 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to review and annul a determination by respondent which revoked petititioner’s license to operate a motor vehicle on the ground of gross negligence. By order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated April 13, 1961, the proceeding was transferred to this court for determination (Civ. Prae. Act, § 1296). Petitioner testified that, at the time of the accident, he was proceeding despite the fact that there was practically no visibility. Determination modified by suspending petitioner’s license for 30 days. As so modified, determination confirmed, without costs. While it may not be said, on this record, that the determination was unsupported by substantial evidence (cf. Matter of Deutsch v. Hults, 10 A D 2d 724), we believe that under all the circumstances revocation of petitioner’s license was not warranted. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to review and annul a determination by respondent which revoked petititioner’s license to operate a motor vehicle on the ground of gross negligence. By order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated April 13, 1961, the proceeding was transferred to this court for determination (Civ. Prae. Act, § 1296). Petitioner testified that, at the time of the accident, he was proceeding despite the fact that there was practically no visibility. Determination modified by suspending petitioner’s license for 30 days. As so modified, determination confirmed, without costs. While it may not be said, on this record, that the determination was unsupported by substantial evidence (cf. Matter of Deutsch v. Hults, 10 A D 2d 724), we believe that under all the circumstances revocation of petitioner’s license was not warranted. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 1009, 216 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wattecamps-v-hults-nyappdiv-1961.