From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arken v. N.Y. Dep't of Fin.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Apr 8, 2015
127 A.D.3d 853 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

2013-08076, Index No. 23955/12.

04-08-2015

In the Matter of Donald ARKEN, petitioner, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, respondent.

Katarzyna Wilinska, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for petitioner. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo, Elizabeth I. Freedman, and Hanh H. Le of counsel), for respondent.


Katarzyna Wilinska, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for petitioner.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo, Elizabeth I. Freedman, and Hanh H. Le of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the City of New York, Department of Finance, Parking Violations Adjudication Division, dated October 10, 2012, affirming a determination of an Administrative Law Judge dated June 20, 2012, which, after a hearing, inter alia, reinstated two previously dismissed parking violations, and imposed a penalty.

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

“To annul an administrative determination made after a hearing directed by law at which evidence is taken, a court must conclude that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the determination” (Matter of Mannino v. Department of Motor Vehs. of State of N.Y.-Traffic Violations Div., 101 A.D.3d 880, 880, 956 N.Y.S.2d 120 ; see Matter of Kelly v. Safir, 96 N.Y.2d 32, 38, 724 N.Y.S.2d 680, 747 N.E.2d 1280 ; Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 ). Contrary to the petitioner's contention, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination under review (see Matter of Peterson v. State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehs., 90 A.D.3d 1055, 934 N.Y.S.2d 837 ; 19 RCNY 39–10[j] ). Accordingly, the determination must be confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

RIVERA, J.P., SGROI, MALTESE and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Arken v. N.Y. Dep't of Fin.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Apr 8, 2015
127 A.D.3d 853 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Arken v. N.Y. Dep't of Fin.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Donald Arken, petitioner, v. New York City Department of…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Apr 8, 2015

Citations

127 A.D.3d 853 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
4 N.Y.S.3d 904
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 2961