Kowanes v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles
| Decision Date | 24 September 1976 |
| Citation | 387 N.Y.S.2d 331,54 A.D.2d 611 |
| Parties | Arnold J. KOWANES, Jr., Petiioner, v. STATE of New York DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lowery, Carrigan & Keough, Richard Brickwedde, Syracuse, for petitioner.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Albany, Anne Meadvin, for respondent.
Before MOULE, J.P., and CARDAMONE, SIMONS, MAHONEY and WITMER, JJ.
Following petitioner's arrest for driving while intoxicated, he refused to submit to a chemical test for intoxication and, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1194(2), his license was subsequently revoked. In this CPLR Article 78 proceeding, he seeks to review respondent's Administrative Review Board's confirmation of the revocation.
We find no merit in petitioner's contention that he was not given a sufficient warning in clear and unambiguous language of the effect of his refusal to submit to the chemical test. The undisputed testimony of the arresting officer indicates that on several separate occasions he was informed that 'failure to submit may result in revocation of your license whether or not you are convicted of this charge.' This language clearly fulfills the statutory requirement of Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1194(2), that upon such refusal the commissioner A.D.2d 402, 326 N.Y.S.2d 365).
Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the use of the phrase 'may result in revocation' is not in conflict with the statutory mandate of Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1192(2), that upon such refusal the commissioner 'shall revoke' the license, since the mere recitation of the warning together with a subsequent refusal to submit does not automatically require revocation in every instance. Thus, in order to sustain the revocation it must be established that, aside from a warning and refusal, there were reasonable grounds for the arrest and that the arrest was properly made. (See Matter of Murray v. Tofany, 33 A.D.2d 1080, 307 N.Y.S.2d 776.)
Nor is there any merit to petitioner's contention that the hearing officer improperly disregarded an exculpatory note by the arraigning justice that petitioner did not appear intoxicated at the time of his arraignment. Rather than accept as evidence this unsworn and unattested document, the record indicates that the hearing officer properly reserved decision and upon petitioner's request would have granted an adjournment for the purpose of taking testimony from the arraigning justice. Petitioner,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stark v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles
...for the arrest and that the arrest was lawful (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1194, subd. 3, par. a; Kowanes v. State of New York Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 54 A.D.2d 611, 612, 387 N.Y.S.2d 331). The record confirms that the deputies had probable cause to believe that petitioner was driving while......
-
Dennstedt v. Appeals Bd. of Admin. Adjudication Bureau
...695 [2d Dept. 1996], lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 983, 649 N.Y.S.2d 389, 672 N.E.2d 615 [1996] ; Kowanes v. State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehs. , 54 A.D.2d 611, 611, 387 N.Y.S.2d 331 [4th Dept. 1976] ...
-
Dennstedt v. The Appeals Bd. of Admin. Adjudication Bur.
...People v Cousar, 226 A.D.2d 740, 741 [2d Dept 1996], lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 983 [1996]; Kowanes v State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehs., 54 A.D.2d 611, 611 [4th Dept 1976]). ...
-
People v. Brol
...to believe the operator has violated section 1192 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see, also, Matter of Kowanes v. State of New York Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 54 A.D.2d 611, 387 N.Y.S.2d 331; Matter of Murray v. Tofany, 33 A.D.2d 1080, 307 N.Y.S.2d 776). Unless the test is taken within the tw......