From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Miranda v. Adduci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 1991
172 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

April 1, 1991


Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The determination that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 (a) is supported by substantial evidence and must be confirmed (see, Matter of McKenzie v. Fisher, 39 N.Y.2d 103; Matter of Kahn v. State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 134 A.D.2d 594). The petitioner's challenge to the administrative determination rests largely upon an issue of credibility which was primarily for the fact-finder to resolve (see, Matter of Silberfarb v. Board of Coop. Educ. Servs., 60 N.Y.2d 979; Matter of Collins v. Codd, 38 N.Y.2d 269). The testimony of the police officer that he observed the petitioner making an unsafe lane change on his motorcycle was not incredible as a matter of law and was sufficient to sustain the Commissioner's determination (see, Matter of Ballen v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 147 A.D.2d 560; Matter of Martin v. Adduci, 138 A.D.2d 599).

We have reviewed the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Kooper, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Miranda v. Adduci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 1991
172 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Matter of Miranda v. Adduci

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MICHAEL P. MIRANDA, Appellant, v. PATRICIA B. ADDUCI, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 1, 1991

Citations

172 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
567 N.Y.S.2d 869

Citing Cases

People v. Ohlsen

Only the facts known to Hoffman at the time he initiated the stop are relevant or material to a determination…

Pernick v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

The determination that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (d) is supported by substantial…