Levitsky v. Swarts

• Decision Date: 12 December 2012
• Citation: Levitsky v. Swarts, 101 A.D.3d 879, 957 N.Y.S.2d 160, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8527 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
• Parties: In the Matter of Steven LEVITSKY, appellant, v. David J. SWARTS, etc., respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

101 A.D.3d 879

957 N.Y.S.2d 160

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08527

In the Matter of Steven LEVITSKY, appellant,

v.David J. SWARTS, etc., respondent.

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

Dec. 12, 2012.

Steven Levitsky, New York, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Patrick J. Walsh of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, dated September 18, 2010, suspending the petitioner's registration and license plates with respect to a certain motor vehicle for a period of 12 days pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 318, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colangelo, J.), dated April 8, 2011, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 318 provides that the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (hereinafter the DMV) is to issue a mandatory suspension of a motor vehicle's registration when it receives evidentiary proof that the financial security for such a vehicle is no longer in effect ( see Matter of Giambra v. Commissioner of Motor Vehs. of State of N.Y., 59 A.D.2d 648, 398 N.Y.S.2d 301,affd.46 N.Y.2d 743, 413 N.Y.S.2d 643, 386 N.E.2d 251;Matter of Stevens v. Hults, 41 Misc.2d 168, 169, 245 N.Y.S.2d 425).

In September 2010, the petitioner's insurance company notified the DMV that the insurance on a certain automobile registered to the petitioner had lapsed. The petitioner contends that because his insurance company did not properly notify him that the insurance on the subject vehicle had lapsed, in compliance with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313(1)(a), the suspension of his registration and license plates with respect to the subject vehicle was improper. However, the provisions of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 are not applicable to the DMV's mandatory duty to suspend the registration of an uninsured vehicle pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 318 ( see Matter of Stevens v. Hults, 41 Misc.2d at 169, 245 N.Y.S.2d 425;see also Matter of Langabeer v. Hults, 52 Misc.2d 730, 731, 276 N.Y.S.2d 430;cf. Matter of Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. v. Robbins, 279 A.D.2d 631, 632, 720 N.Y.S.2d 153). Under the circumstances, the DMV's...