From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sheehan v. Passidomo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 15, 1986
122 A.D.2d 869 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

August 15, 1986


Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The Administrative Law Judge did not abuse his discretion in considering the opinion testimony of a senior automotive facilities inspector for the Division of Vehicle Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles (see, State Administrative Procedure Act § 306). We find that the Administrative Law Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and had a rational basis (see, Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 N.Y.2d 269). The Commissioner's suspension of the petitioner's automobile dealer's license for a 45-day period was not excessive (see, Matter of Ansbro v McGuire, 49 N.Y.2d 872, 874). Moreover, this sanction was proper since the petitioner was found to have violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 417, a statute enacted to protect the safety of the motoring public as well as the vehicle purchaser (see, Pierce v International Harvester Co., 61 A.D.2d 255, 259-260). Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sheehan v. Passidomo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 15, 1986
122 A.D.2d 869 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Sheehan v. Passidomo

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL SHEEHAN, Doing Business as A-No. 1 AUTOS, Petitioner, v. JOHN A…

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

Date published: Aug 15, 1986

Citations

122 A.D.2d 869 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Matter of Romeo v. Adduci

Moreover, petitioner failed to repair the vehicle as warranted. Given the described condition of the vehicle,…

Matter of Port City Ford-Mercury v. Adduci

The vehicle, when delivered, was in no condition to render satisfactory service upon the public highway, and…