From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dennstedt v. The Appeals Bd. of Admin. Adjudication Bur.

Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 10, 2022
2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 3828 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

Opinion

No. 347 TP 21-01572

06-10-2022

IN THE MATTER OF CRAIG A. DENNSTEDT, PETITIONER, v. THE APPEALS BOARD OF ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION BUREAU, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MARK J.F. SCHROEDER, AS COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, RESPONDENTS.

FITZSIMMONS, NUNN & PLUKAS, LLP, ROCHESTER (JOSEPH PLUKAS OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (ALEXANDRIA TWINEM OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS.


FITZSIMMONS, NUNN & PLUKAS, LLP, ROCHESTER (JOSEPH PLUKAS OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.

LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (ALEXANDRIA TWINEM OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS.

PRESENT: LINDLEY, J.P., NEMOYER, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County [Ann Marie Taddeo, J.], entered February 19, 2021) to review a determination of respondents. The determination revoked the license of petitioner to operate a motor vehicle.

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g), petitioner seeks to annul the determination revoking his driver's license based on his refusal to submit to a chemical test following his arrest for driving while intoxicated. We confirm the determination. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). The arresting officer's testimony at the hearing established that he issued the standardized warning when he informed petitioner that his refusal to submit to chemical testing would result in the immediate suspension and subsequent revocation of his license (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 [2] [c] [3]; see generally People v Smith, 18 N.Y.3d 544, 548-549 [2012]). While the officer also testified at the hearing that he responded to a question posed by petitioner by stating that he was not confiscating petitioner's license at that exact moment and that petitioner would have a court date at some point, we conclude that such testimony did not conflict with the officer's clear and unequivocal warning regarding the effect of petitioner's refusal to submit to testing (cf. Matter of Gargano v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 118 A.D.2d 859, 860 [2d Dept 1986], lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 606 [1986]; see generally People v Cousar, 226 A.D.2d 740, 741 [2d Dept 1996], lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 983 [1996]; Kowanes v State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehs., 54 A.D.2d 611, 611 [4th Dept 1976]).


Summaries of

Dennstedt v. The Appeals Bd. of Admin. Adjudication Bur.

Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 10, 2022
2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 3828 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
Case details for

Dennstedt v. The Appeals Bd. of Admin. Adjudication Bur.

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF CRAIG A. DENNSTEDT, PETITIONER, v. THE APPEALS BOARD OF…

Court:Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jun 10, 2022

Citations

2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 3828 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)