From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Conroy v. Melton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 28, 1976
53 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Summary

In Conroy v Melton (53 A.D.2d 679), the case dealt with section 318 Veh. Traf. of the Vehicle and Traffic Law which deals with financial security.

Summary of this case from Matter of Johnson v. Melton

Opinion

June 28, 1976


In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review appellant's cancellation of petitioner's (1) New York State driver's license and (2) tractor registration, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated June 23, 1975, which (1) declared null and void appellant's revocation of the petitioner's driver's license, without prejudice to appellant's right to conduct an administrative hearing on notice to petitioner, and (2) declared that it is unconstitutional for appellant to revoke a driver's license pursuant to subdivisions 2, 3 and 5 of section 318 Veh. Traf. of the Vehicle and Traffic Law without first affording the licensee an opportunity for a hearing. Appeal dismissed as moot, without costs or disbursements. The order of revocation was rescinded upon a showing that the vehicle involved in the accident was actually insured. Were we not dismissing this appeal, we would reverse the judgment on the merits and would hold that the subject subdivisions of the statute in question are constitutional. A driver has two opportunities to protect his license. In the first instance, if he is cited for failing to have the required policy of insurance, he can refute the accusation on the return day by producing evidence thereof, as was the case herein. Secondly, if served with notice of revocation, he may, as noted by Cooke, J., in Matter of Horodner v Fisher ( 38 N.Y.2d 680, 685) "seek a stay and, by way of an article 78 proceeding (CPLR 7803, subd 3), challenge the action taken." These alternatives appear to furnish safeguards sufficient to protect a driver against an unconstitutional deprivation of due process. Bell v Burson ( 402 U.S. 535) is inapposite on the facts of this case. Martuscello, Acting P.J., Cohalan, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur. [ 82 Misc.2d 750. ]


Summaries of

Conroy v. Melton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 28, 1976
53 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

In Conroy v Melton (53 A.D.2d 679), the case dealt with section 318 Veh. Traf. of the Vehicle and Traffic Law which deals with financial security.

Summary of this case from Matter of Johnson v. Melton
Case details for

Conroy v. Melton

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD P. CONROY, Respondent, v. JAMES P. MELTON, as Commissioner of the…

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

Date published: Jun 28, 1976

Citations

53 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

Matter of Johnson v. Melton

Both petitioners therein waived their respective rights to a hearing by allowing the default. In Conroy v…