IN RE: Lloyd HALL (2009)

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board dated January 11, 2008, which confirmed a determination of an administrative law judge dated December 6, 2006, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180, imposed a fine in the sum of $180 plus a surcharge, and revoked the petitioner's driver's license.

ADJUDGED that the determination dated January 11, 2008, is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the finding that he violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 by speeding is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Namer v. Martinez, 26 A.D.3d 498, 498, 809 N.Y.S.2d 457;  Matter of Clarke v. Martinez, 14 A.D.3d 612, 612-613, 789 N.Y.S.2d 207;  Matter of Koenigsberg v. State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehs. Appeals Bd., 8 A.D.3d 383, 383, 777 N.Y.S.2d 745;  Matter of Mataragas v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 6 A.D.3d 537, 538, 774 N.Y.S.2d 409;  Matter of Gentile v. Jackson, 273 A.D.2d 235, 235, 709 N.Y.S.2d 444).   The administrative law judge properly relied on a police officer's testimony that the officer had been trained in visually estimating speed and his visual estimate of the speed of the petitioner's car, which, together with the reading from the stationary radar device in the officer's patrol car, were sufficient to sustain the determination that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (see Matter of Clarke v. Martinez, 14 A.D.3d at 612-613, 789 N.Y.S.2d 207;  Matter of Mataragas v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 6 A.D.3d at 538, 774 N.Y.S.2d 409;  Matter of DeOliveira v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 271 A.D.2d 607, 608, 706 N.Y.S.2d 173;  Matter of Neiman v. State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehs. Appeals Bd., 265 A.D.2d 558, 558, 697 N.Y.S.2d 310;  Matter of Howe v. Adduci, 226 A.D.2d 377, 377-378, 640 N.Y.S.2d 225;  Matter of Pernick v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 217 A.D.2d 630, 631, 629 N.Y.S.2d 783).

The petitioner's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit.