Opinion
2018–02854 Index No. 1775/16
11-06-2019
In the Matter of Fausto COLLADO, et al., Petitioners, v. Deborah V. DUGAN, etc., et al., Respondents.
Carlos J. Cuevas, Yonkers, NY, for petitioners. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Steven C. Wu and Mark S. Grube of counsel), for respondents.
Carlos J. Cuevas, Yonkers, NY, for petitioners.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Steven C. Wu and Mark S. Grube of counsel), for respondents.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & JUDGMENT Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board dated December 29, 2015, affirming a determination of an administrative law judge dated September 23, 2014, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioners violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 303(e)(3) in the performance of certain motor vehicle inspections, imposed civil penalties in the total sum of $35,000, and revoked the inspection station license of the petitioner A & J Auto Center, Inc.
ADJUDGED that the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
The petitioners, the owner of a motor vehicle inspection facility and the facility, respectively, were charged with violations of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 303(e)(3) as a result of the alleged improper performance of 231 motor vehicle inspections. A hearing was held before an administrative law judge (hereinafter the ALJ), at which the petitioner owner, who is not proficient in English, testified with his son acting as his interpreter. The ALJ sustained all of the charges, imposed civil penalties in the total sum of $35,000, and revoked the petitioner facility's inspection certification. The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board affirmed the determination. The petitioners commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, and by order dated September 5, 2017, the Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g) for disposition.
The petitioners contend that the hearing was improperly conducted without the assistance of a "qualified and certified" Spanish language interpreter. However, this contention is not properly before this Court, as it is raised for the first time in this CPLR article 78 proceeding (see Matter of Peckham v. Calogero , 12 N.Y.3d 424, 430, 883 N.Y.S.2d 751, 911 N.E.2d 813 ; Matter of Calenzo v. Shah , 112 A.D.3d 709, 712, 976 N.Y.S.2d 555 ; Matter of Gill v. Lauro , 84 A.D.3d 958, 959, 923 N.Y.S.2d 845 ; Choon Ho Kim v. Transworld Airways , 272 A.D.2d 567, 568, 709 N.Y.S.2d 428 ).
RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.