Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: MASPETH OPERATING CORPORATION, petitioner, v. Raymond P. MARTINEZ, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, respondent.

Decided: June 28, 2004

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, and WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ. Margolis & Flanary, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Walker G. Flanary III of counsel), for petitioner. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Oren L. Zeve of counsel), for respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Raymond P. Martinez, the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, dated November 18, 2002, which confirmed 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 imposed a penalty.

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

 Substantial evidence has been defined as “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183).   Moreover, “[t]he courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by [an administrative agency] where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists” (Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 444, 522 N.Y.S.2d 478, 517 N.E.2d 193, quoting Matter of Stork Rest. v. Boland, 282 N.Y. 256, 267, 26 N.E.2d 247).

 The testimony of the traffic enforcement agent who issued the summonses regarding the location of the weighing site and her training, accompanied by documentation establishing the accuracy of the scales she used in weighing the petitioner's vehicle, provided a sufficient basis for the determination of the Administrative Law Judge (see Matter of City Hawk Indus. v. Martinez, 2 A.D.3d 635, 768 N.Y.S.2d 353;  Matter of Maspeth Ave. Operating Corp. v. Martinez, 2 A.D.3d 446, 767 N.Y.S.2d 868;  Matter of Scara-Mix, Inc. v. Martinez, 305 A.D.2d 418, 758 N.Y.S.2d 507).   As the determination is supported by substantial evidence, we decline to disturb it.

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

Copied to clipboard