Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Mark D. LYNCH, Doing Business as Southside Auto Sales, LLC and Christy A. Battinelli, Doing Business as Southside Automotive, Petitioners, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES APPEALS BOARD, Respondent.
Petitioners, the owners of a vehicle dealership and inspection station, respectively, each commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a single determination finding them guilty of a total of 10 charges in connection with the sale and inspection of a vehicle. The dealership and inspection station shared the same location, and the same person was in charge of the sale and inspection of a certain vehicle that prompted these charges. We note at the outset that petitioners do not raise a substantial evidence issue, and thus Supreme Court erred in transferring the proceeding to this Court (see Matter of Smeraldo v. Rater, 55 AD3d 1298, 1299). In the interest of judicial economy, however, we address the merits of the issues raised by petitioners (see id.).
Petitioners contend that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) violated their rights to due process by relying on misconduct that was not charged in the notice of violation. We reject that contention. The ALJ did not consider that misconduct in sustaining the violations against petitioners, but rather properly considered it only as an aggravating factor in support of the penalty (see Matter of Cris Place, Inc. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 56 AD3d 339, 339–340). We therefore conclude that petitioners were given “fair notice of the charges against [them]” (Block v. Ambach, 73 N.Y.2d 323, 332; cf. Matter of Wesley v. Board of Fire Commrs. of Ridge–Culver Fire Dist., 198 A.D.2d 908, 908).
We reject petitioners' further contention that the penalty of license revocations is “so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness” (Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 237; see Matter of Watson v. Fiala, 101 AD3d 1649, 1651). The ALJ listed several aggravating factors in recommending that the licenses be revoked, including the seriousness of the violations in selling a vehicle that had numerous mechanical problems that should not have passed inspection, and we therefore see no basis for disturbing the penalty.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petitions are dismissed.
MEMORANDUM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 06, 2015
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)