Opinion
TP 01-02045
May 3, 2002.
CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to this Court by an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Sedita, Jr., J.), entered September 12, 2001, seeking to annul the determination that petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111.
MICHAEL KUZMA, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER.
ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PINE, J.P., HAYES, WISNER, SCUDDER, AND KEHOE, JJ.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.
Memorandum:
Petitioner contends in this CPLR article 78 proceeding that the determination that she violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. "This Court's review of the determination of an administrative agency is limited to whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence" ( Matter of DeOliveira v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 271 A.D.2d 607, 608; see Matter of Liuzzo v. State of New York Dept. of Motor Vehicles Appeals Bd., 209 A.D.2d 618), and the decision of an Administrative Law Judge "to credit the testimony of a given witness is largely unreviewable by the courts" ( Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443; see Matter of Soto v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 203 A.D.2d 370). "While the testimony offered by the petitioner called into question the police officer's version of the facts, it is not the role of this Court to weigh the evidence presented" ( Liuzzo, 209 A.D.2d at 618). The testimony of two police officers that they observed petitioner pass through a red light constitutes substantial evidence that petitioner thereby violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 ( see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 181).