Craig v. Melton
| Decision Date | 23 April 1976 |
| Citation | 89 Misc.2d 449,391 N.Y.S.2d 265 |
| Parties | Edward H. CRAIG, Petitioner, v. James P. MELTON, as Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York, Respondent. Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
The petitioner seeks a stay of revocation pending determination of the administrative appeal which stay has been denied by the Administrative Appeals Board. Although the exercise of discretion by the Administrative Appeals Board should normally be upheld, Matter of Pell v. Board of Education, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321; Fink v. Cole, 1 N.Y.2d 48, 150 N.Y.S.2d 175, 133 N.E.2d 691; Meschino v. Lowery, 34 A.D.2d 255, 310 N.Y.S.2d 908, there is no rational basis for the denial in this case.
There are some reasons why the stay should have been granted, among others, petitioner raises a question with reference to his physical condition. There is a serious question whether the petitioner ever operated a vehicle on a public highway. The testimony was that the vehicle was in a private parking lot and had gone into a ditch without reaching the highway.
Section 1192 of the Vehicle & Traffic Law refers to the operation of a motor vehicle, but it does not state whether or not it applies to a vehicle which was not on a public highway. However, Section 1192 is a penal statute and must be construed strictly as to the prosecution and liberally in favor of the defendant. People v. Burton, 47 Misc.2d 1077, 264 N.Y.S.2d 89. The purpose of the statute was to relieve persons on the public highway from the menace of intoxicated drivers. People v. Koch, 250 App.Div. 623, 294 N.Y.S. 987.
Since the failure to take the test under § 1194 is also a penal statute, it should be construed in the same manner. Since the defendant was not operating a vehicle on a public highway, and since he raises a possibility that he may have been physically disabled, the denial of the stay is an improvident exercise of discretion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Edsall
...also: Peo. v. Conzo, 100 Misc.2d 143, 418 N.Y.S.2d 750; State Farm Mut. v. Mavroidakos, 63 A.D.2d 933, 406 N.Y.S.2d 87; Craig v. Melton, 89 Misc.2d 449, 391 N.Y.S.2d 265; and Beck v. Coby, 52 A.D.2d 559, 396 N.Y.S.2d In all of the five cases cited by the defendant a parking lot is involved,......
-
The offense
...S.E.2d 849 (W. Va. 1977) (no statutory violation when defendant was driving in privately owned parking lot). See also Craig v. Melton , 391 N.Y.S2d 265 (1976) (a private parking lot is beyond the purview of the statute, which does not specify location, on the grounds that a penal statute is......