From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of S S Auto Repair Center v. Adduci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 16, 1993
190 A.D.2d 802 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

February 16, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, that branch of the petition which sought vacatur of the penalty is granted, and the matter is remitted to the New York State Commissioner of Motor Vehicles for the imposition of a new penalty, which shall in no event exceed a five-day suspension of the petitioner's license and a $135 civil penalty.

The petitioner was charged with violating several of the regulations of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, while conducting an automobile inspection. After a hearing, the petitioner was found to have violated 15 NYCRR 79.20 (c) (3) (failing to remove a certificate of inspection prior to the inspection — it removed it after the inspection), 15 NYCRR 79.20 (c) (7) (although the petitioner properly affixed an expired rejection notice on the car's windshield, it did not write the word "void" on it), and 15 NYCRR 79.21 (h) (2) (the petitioner failed to note or mention that the vehicle was missing a catalytic converter).

The only issue on appeal is whether the penalty imposed by the commissioner (a $135 civil penalty and a 45-day suspension of the petitioner's inspection station license) is so disproportionate to the offense, in light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222). We find that it is.

The petitioner's violations were a result of poor management and supervision rather than fraud or deceptive practices, and were not made with any conscious intention to violate the rules and regulations of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (see, Matter of Ralph Oldsmobile v Adduci, 170 A.D.2d 454). Under the circumstances, we find that the imposition of a license suspension of no more than five days and a civil penalty of no more than $135 would be appropriate (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, supra). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of S S Auto Repair Center v. Adduci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 16, 1993
190 A.D.2d 802 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Matter of S S Auto Repair Center v. Adduci

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of S S AUTO REPAIR CENTER, INC., Appellant, v. PATRICIA B…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 16, 1993

Citations

190 A.D.2d 802 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
593 N.Y.S.2d 853

Citing Cases

Tyler v. N.Y. State Commr. of M.V

We conclude that the notice and opportunity given here satisfy the requirements of due process, and the ALJ…

Matter of Somma v. Jackson

As evidence of the inappropriateness of the penalty assessed, petitioner points to the alleged failure of the…