IN RE: Lloyd GIBBS (2019)

Determination of respondents, dated August 21, 2017, which found, after a hearing, that petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1111(d)(1) and 1124, and imposed a fine, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, Bronx County [Mary Ann Brigantti, J.] entered on or about June 6, 2018), dismissed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1111(d)(1) and 1124 is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Nelke v. Department of Motor Vehs. of the State of N.Y., 79 A.D.3d 433, 915 N.Y.S.2d 219 [1st Dept. 2010]).  The police officer testified that he had a clear, unobstructed view of petitioner and that petitioner failed to stop at a stop line that preceded a red traffic signal, crossed over the double yellow line, and drove into oncoming traffic, causing the traffic moving in that direction to stop.  This testimony is not incredible as a matter of law and is sufficient to sustain a determination that petitioner failed to stop at a red signal and interfered with safe motor vehicle operation.  Petitioner's contention that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) should have credited his testimony that he was not controlled by the traffic signal and that there were no cars coming from the opposite direction is unavailing (see Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443–444, 522 N.Y.S.2d 478, 517 N.E.2d 193 [1987]).

Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the ALJ's findings resulted from bias (Matter of Warder v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y., 53 N.Y.2d 186, 197, 440 N.Y.S.2d 875, 423 N.E.2d 352 [1981], cert denied 454 U.S. 1125, 102 S.Ct. 974, 71 L.Ed.2d 112 [1981]).

The record does not support petitioner's contention that the ALJ did not pay attention during his testimony and failed to review photographs introduced into evidence.  Nor does the record show that the ALJ improperly interfered in the conduct of the hearing or questioned witnesses excessively (see People v. Jamison, 47 N.Y.2d 882, 419 N.Y.S.2d 472, 393 N.E.2d 467 [1979]).  Moreover, the ALJ properly directed petitioner to testify in response to questions, so as to focus the testimony on material and relevant evidence (see People v. Hansson, 162 A.D.3d 1234, 1236, 79 N.Y.S.3d 341 [3d Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1004, 86 N.Y.S.3d 762, 111 N.E.3d 1118 [2018]).