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: SUFFOLK MATERIALS CORP., petitioner, v. Raymond P. MARTINEZ, etc., respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Appeals of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, dated February 13, 2003, confirming the findings of an Administrative Law Judge, made after a hearing, that the petitioner violated New York City Traffic Rules and Regulations (34 RCNY) § 4-15(b)(9) and (10), and Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401(7)(F)(b), and imposing a fine of $11,250.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
The petitioner, the owner of a vehicle alleged to be overweight in violation of the New York City Traffic Rules and Regulations, waived its jurisdictional objections when it appeared and participated in the administrative hearing on the merits (see Matter of Clinton Ave. Constr. Corp. v. Martinez, 8 A.D.3d 273, 274, 777 N.Y.S.2d 688; Matter of United States Power Squadrons v. State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 84 A.D.2d 318, 325, 445 N.Y.S.2d 565, affd. 59 N.Y.2d 401, 465 N.Y.S.2d 871, 452 N.E.2d 1199). In any event, service of the summons upon the driver of the vehicle was sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over the petitioner (see Quadrozzi Equip. Leasing Corp. v. Martinez, 13 A.D.3d 635, 786 N.Y.S.2d 347; Matter of IESI N.Y. Corp. v. Martinez, 8 A.D.3d 667, 668, 778 N.Y.S.2d 900; Matter of Sureway Towing v. Martinez, 8 A.D.3d 490, 491, 779 N.Y.S.2d 109; Matter of Clinton Ave. Constr. Corp. v. Martinez, supra ).
The petitioner's remaining contention is unpreserved for judicial review, and in any event, is without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: March 14, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
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)