Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

DeOliveira v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 17, 2000

271 A.D.2d 607; 706 N.Y.S.2d 173; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4307

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of LaChance v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Nelke v. Department of Motor Vehicles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Lloyd Hall v. Swartz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Clinton Avenue Construction Corp. v. Martinez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Prado (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2004)
Maspeth Avenue Operating Corp. v. Martinez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Cotugno v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Scara-Mix, Inc. v. Martinez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Al-Habshi v. Department of Motor Vehicles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Walls v. Wing (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Mabins v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Appeals Board of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, dated March 31, 1998, which affirmed the determination of an Administrative Law Judge, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner was guilty of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (d) (as amended by L 1997, ch 422, § 72-75).

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

*608This Court’s review of the determination of an administrative agency is limited to whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Liuzzo v State of N. Y. Dept. of Motor Vehicles Appeals Bd., 209 AD2d 618), and deference must be given to the fact-finding and credibility determinations of the agency (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436).

The testimony of the police officer who issued the summons regarding his visual estimation of the petitioner’s speed as well as his extensive training in making such estimations, is a sufficient basis for the determination of the Administrative Law Judge (see, People v Olsen, 22 NY2d 230; Matter of Neiman v State of N. Y. Dept. of Motor Vehicles Appeals Bd., 265 AD2d 558; Matter of Pernick v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 217 AD2d 630). As the determination was supported by substantial evidence, we decline to disturb it. Thompson, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.