Reape v. Adduci
| Citation | 542 N.Y.S.2d 562,151 A.D.2d 290 |
| Parties | In re Application of Harold REAPE, Petitioner, For a Judgment etc., v. Patricia B. ADDUCI, etc., et al., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 13 June 1989 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Harold Reape, pro se.
M.S. Mintz, for respondents.
Before KUPFERMAN, J.P., and SULLIVAN, CARRO, MILONAS and ELLERIN, JJ.
In this Article 78 proceeding transferred to this Court by order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.) entered October 19, 1988, the petition is unanimously granted to the extent of vacating and annulling the determination of Administrative Law Judge Victor Rothberg, rendered March 8, 1988, as affirmed August 26, 1988 by the Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board, which found petitioner guilty of failing to stop at a red light in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111(d)(1) and fined him $75 plus a mandatory $10 surcharge, and the petition is otherwise denied and dismissed, without costs.
Petitioner was issued a summons for failing to stop at a red light at the intersection of West Street and Little West 12th Street in Manhattan. The summons cited his vehicle as license plate # KEV 193, and described the car as a red Chevrolet sedan.
The hearing before the Administrative Law Judge was notably brief. At the hearing, the Police Officer who issued the summons was the sole witness for the People. This Officer was on duty at a traffic enforcement post at this intersection for over 3 hours. He testified that he first observed the petitioner's vehicle 5 1/2 car lengths before the marked crosswalk. At that time the signal was red, and remained red while petitioner continued driving forward and entered the crosswalk. The officer stopped petitioner, who allegedly stated to him that "he didn't see the light" and that "he just followed the traffic in front of him".
Petitioner called two witnesses, the driver of a car that was behind him who testified that the light was green at the time that both he and petitioner drove through the intersection, and the driver of the car directly in front of him who said that he could not see the traffic light because a truck blocked his view. However, this witness stated the traffic was flowing freely, and both Mr. Reape and this witness drove through the intersection.
Petitioner himself testified and also stated that he was driving a friend's blue and white Cadillac, license # KEV 193, and that the light was green when he entered the intersection. Most significantly, he produced the registration for the vehicle license plate, # KEV 193, which is a blue and white Cadillac. Petitioner then argued that the Police Officer must have been in error in issuing petitioner the summons for driving a red Chevrolet through a red light, when the registration established that petitioner was driving a blue and white Cadillac.
At the close of this remarkably brief hearing, the Administrative Law Judge orally ruled that the charge had been sustained and that he found petitioner guilty, without stating any reasons for his ruling.
Upon petitioner's administrative appeal, the respondent's appeal board attempted to explain the discrepancy between the color and make of the vehicle described in the summons and that described in the registration. The appeal board in its decision described this discrepancy as a "question of credibility within the province of the Administrative Law Judge" and speculated, without any foundation in the record, as to reasons why the discrepancy existed (such as the possibility of switched plates), in order to sustain the factual finding of the Administrative Law Judge.
In this transferred Article 78 proceeding, the function of this Court is to determine whether the administrative decision is, on the entire record, supported by substantial evidence (CPLR 7803(4)). The respondent argues simplistically that since the issues in this case are limited to a question of the credibility of the witnesses at the hearing, the scope of the court's review is limited and the hearing officer's findings in that regard must be accorded great weight. However...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hazen v. Hill Betts & Nash, LLP
...v. State Div. of Human Rights, 78 N.Y.2d 207, 216, 573 N.Y.S.2d 49, 54, 577 N.E.2d 40, 45 (1991); Matter of Reape v. Adduci, 151 A.D.2d 290, 293, 542 N.Y.S.2d 562, 564 (1st Dept.1989). In this case, the ALJ found that the respondent's reason for terminating the petitioner was a pretext and ......
-
Batra v. Egan, 2018–04753
...substantial evidence that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(d) on March 8, 2016 (see Matter of Reape v. Adduci , 151 A.D.2d 290, 292, 542 N.Y.S.2d 562 ; see e.g. Matter of Ryder Truck Rental v. Parking Violations Bur. of Transp. Admin. of City of N.Y. , 62 N.Y.2d 667, 6......
-
Hazen v. Hill Betts & Nash, LLP
...v. State Div. of Human Rights, 78 N.Y.2d 207, 216, 573 N.Y.S.2d 49, 54, 577 N.E.2d 40, 45 (1991); Matter of Reape v. Adduci, 151 A.D.2d 290, 293, 542 N.Y.S.2d 562, 564 (1st Dept. 1989). In this case, the ALJ found that the respondent's reason for terminating the petitioner was a pretext and......
- Botway v. American Intern. Assur. Co. of New York