Opinion
10-P-1827
10-19-2011
ROBERT DASCOLI v. BOARD OF APPEAL ON MOTOR VEHICLE LIABILITY POLICIES AND BONDS.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
We see no error in the motion judge's decision. Assuming the plaintiff was given incorrect information at the time of his refusal, he was, within two days, sent notice by the registrar of motor vehicles (registrar) that the actual suspension was for five years rather than the eighteen months he was told at the time of the refusal. We may assume without deciding that the provision of incorrect information to the plaintiff would have rendered his suspension invalid. The plaintiff however did not appeal to the registrar within the requisite fifteen days, see G. L. c. 90, § 24(1)(g), which would have been the proper avenue for challenging the suspension. The motor vehicle board of appeal, before which the plaintiff brought the instant appeal of the suspension, has no authority under the statute to grant the plaintiff the relief he seeks. See G. L. c. 90, § 24(1)(f)(1). The judgment is therefore affirmed.
We note that there is no allegation that the plaintiff did not receive the notice containing the correct length of suspension.
So ordered.
By the Court (Grasso, Katzmann & Rubin, JJ.),