Barr v. N.Y. State Dep't of Motor Vehicles

• Decision Date: 02 November 2017
• Docket Number: 524369.
• Citation: 63 N.Y.S.3d 599,155 A.D.3d 1159
• Parties: In the Matter of Kevin N. BARR, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

155 A.D.3d 1159
63 N.Y.S.3d 599

In the Matter of Kevin N. BARR, Petitioner,
v.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent.

524369.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Nov. 2, 2017.

63 N.Y.S.3d 600

Gerstenzang, Sills, Davis, Cohn & Gerstenzang, Albany (Eric H. Sills of counsel), for petitioner.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Owen Demuth of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GARRY, J.P., EGAN JR., LYNCH, AARONS and PRITZKER, JJ.

EGAN JR., J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent revoking petitioner's driver's license.

In September 2015, a state trooper initiated a traffic stop of petitioner after observing his vehicle being operated with its high beams activated. Upon executing the traffic stop, the trooper detected the odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle and noticed, among other things, that petitioner had bloodshot, watery eyes and slurred speech. Petitioner failed several subsequently administered field sobriety tests and he was thereafter placed under arrest for driving while intoxicated. In connection with his arrest, petitioner refused to submit to a chemical test, despite receiving

63 N.Y.S.3d 601

several warnings regarding the consequences of such a refusal (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194[2][b] ), and his driver's license was thereafter suspended pending a refusal revocation hearing (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194[2][c] ). Following the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) revoked petitioner's driver's license for at least one year. Upon administrative appeal, respondent's Administrative Appeals Board affirmed the ALJ's determination. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding and the matter was transferred to this Court (see CPLR 7804[g] ).

The issues to be determined by the ALJ at a license revocation hearing are "limited to whether the police officer had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner had been operating a vehicle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192, whether the officer made a lawful arrest of petitioner, whether the warnings with regard to the consequences of refusal to take the chemical test were sufficient and whether petitioner refused to take such test" ( Matter of Berlin v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 80 A.D.3d 911, 913, 914 N.Y.S.2d 436 [2011] ; see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194[2] [c] ). An administrative determination revoking a person's driver's license will be upheld so long as it is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Berlin v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 80 A.D.3d at 913, 914 N.Y.S.2d 436 ; Matter of Craig v. Swarts, 68 A.D.3d 1407, 1409, 891 N.Y.S.2d 204 [2009] ).

Petitioner contends that the revocation of his driver's license must be reversed because the trooper's testimony at the revocation hearing was insufficient to establish that he violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375(3), thereby rendering the traffic stop unlawful. We disagree. A police officer may lawfully execute a traffic stop of a vehicle when he or she has probable cause to believe that the driver of the vehicle has committed a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see People v. Guthrie, 25 N.Y.3d 130, 133, 8 N.Y.S.3d 237, 30 N.E.3d 880 [2015] ; People v. Driscoll, 145 A.D.3d 1349, 1349, 44 N.Y.S.3d 269 [2016] ). Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375(3), a driver shall operate his or her headlights in such a manner "that dazzling light does not interfere with the driver of [an] approaching vehicle." To establish such a violation, it must be shown that the operator of the motor vehicle used his or her high beams within 500 feet of an approaching vehicle and that the use of such high beams interfered with the vision of that driver by "hampering or hindering [his or her] vision" ( People v. Meola, 7 N.Y.2d 391, 397, 198 N.Y.S.2d 276, 165 N.E.2d 851 [1960] ).

At the hearing, the trooper testified that he was traveling westbound along Route 23A in Greene County, when he observed petitioner's vehicle approximately 500 feet away in the eastbound lane of travel with his high beams activated. The trooper testified that petitioner's high beams caused "a glare to [his] vision" and affected his driving insofar as he had to "adjust [his] eyes." In our view, such testimony sufficiently established that he had probable cause to believe that petitioner had committed a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375[3] ; People v. Rorris, 52 A.D.3d 869, 870, 859 N.Y.S.2d 272 [2008], lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 741, 864 N.Y.S.2d 399, 894 N.E.2d 663 [2008] ; People v. Hines, 155 A.D.2d 722, 724, 547 N.Y.S.2d 435 [1989], lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 736, 558 N.Y.S.2d 898, 557 N.E.2d 1194 [1990] ; but see People v. Allen, 89 A.D.3d 742, 743, 932 N.Y.S.2d 142 [2011], lv. dismissed 19 N.Y.3d 993, 951 N.Y.S.2d 468, 975 N.E.2d 914...