Opinion
May 6, 1996
Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
The respondent's determination that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 385 (9) is supported by substantial evidence ( see, Matter of R D Equip. Leasing Co. v. Adduci, 220 A.D.2d 900; People v. Vinciguerra, 24 Misc.2d 63; People v Fortino, 14 Misc.2d 725). The petitioner's contention that the respondent failed to prove that the petitioner knowingly permitted its vehicle to exceed the weight limitations of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 385 (9) may not be raised for the first time in this proceeding ( see, Matter of Malkin v. Tully, 65 A.D.2d 228; see also, Aldrich v. Pattison, 107 A.D.2d 258). Finally, the fine imposed by the respondent was not excessive ( see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 385 [d]). O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.