Opinion
May 5, 1986
Determination and order confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.
In order to successfully argue that a delay in scheduling a refusal hearing pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 constituted a violation of the State Administrative Procedure Act § 301, the petitioner must show that he was substantially prejudiced by such delay (Matter of Geary v Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of State of N.Y., 59 N.Y.2d 950). Petitioner has made no such showing upon the record. Moreover, an examination of the full record before us reveals that there was substantial evidence to support the determination revoking the petitioner's driver's license pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 for refusal to submit to a chemical test. The Administrative Law Judge's decision to adjourn the hearing in order to allow the respondent to present testimony by the arresting officer on a crucial issue necessary to establish a prima facie case under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 was not improper. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and Bracken, JJ., concur.