Opinion
August 1, 1961
Present — Bergan, P.J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act (transferred by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term) to review and annual a determination of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles revoking petitioner's operator's license following a hearing. The revocation was made pursuant to paragraph (a) of subdivision 3 of section 71 (now § 510, subd. 3, par. [a]) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law after the Referee had determined that petitioner had violated subdivision 5-a of section 70 (now § 600) which defined "Leaving scene of accident without reporting". One Ricci testified that he was operating his motor vehicle in a westerly direction on Main Street in the Village of Rosendale, Ulster County, about 8:30 o'clock in the evening of July 27, 1958 when an automobile, rounding a slight curve from the opposite direction, veered to his side of the public highway, collided with his car near the driver's seat and "raked" it along the remainder of its left side causing damages of approximately $435. He further testified that when the colliding vehicle failed to stop, he thereupon reversed his direction and gave chase to it for several miles, during the course of some portion of which he was sufficiently close to observe the license number of the automobile which he was pursuing, of which he made a written memorandum. Ricci testified also that he knew petitioner by sight but not by name and identified him as the driver of the vehicle which, without stopping, had left the scene of the accident. There was testimony by a village police officer that information received from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles disclosed ownership in an automobile dealer in Albany of the vehicle carrying the registration number which Ricci had given him on the day following the collision and that he had been told by the owner that "Buckley was the one to whom that car was charged". At the time, petitioner was employed as a salesman by this dealer. He admitted that he was operating the vehicle owned by his employer in the general locality where, and at about the time when, Ricci claimed that the collision had occurred. He denied however, that he was involved in the accident and the subsequent pursuit. A clear-cut question of fact was presented to the Referee and there is ample evidence to support his decision. Determination unanimously confirmed, without costs.