From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Makhoul v. N.Y. State Dep't of Motor Vehicles

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Mar 20, 2019
170 A.D.3d 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

2017-05856 Index No. 80119/16

03-20-2019

In the Matter of George MAKHOUL, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent.

George Makhoul, Holmdel, New Jersey, petitioner pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Judith N. Vale and Oren L. Zeve of counsel), for respondent.


George Makhoul, Holmdel, New Jersey, petitioner pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Judith N. Vale and Oren L. Zeve of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board, dated December 31, 2015, affirming a determination of an administrative law judge dated July 1, 2015, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(d) and imposed a fine.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the determination that he violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(d) is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Bilotto v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. , 166 A.D.3d 610, 84 N.Y.S.3d 896 ; Matter of Mataragas v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. , 6 A.D.3d 537, 774 N.Y.S.2d 409 ; Matter of Neiman v. State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehs. Appeals Bd. , 265 A.D.2d 558, 697 N.Y.S.2d 310 ). The police officer who ticketed the petitioner testified that the speed limit at the subject location was 35 miles per hour, that there were traffic signs present establishing that the speed limit was 35 miles per hour, and that the officer used visual observation and a radar unit, which the officer had tested, to determine that the petitioner exceeded the speed limit. This testimony was sufficient evidence to sustain the subject determination (see Matter of Molinsky v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. , 105 A.D.3d 960, 962 N.Y.S.2d 710 ; Matter of Koenigsberg v. State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehs. Appeals Bd. , 8 A.D.3d 383, 777 N.Y.S.2d 745 ).

DILLON, J.P., LEVENTHAL, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Makhoul v. N.Y. State Dep't of Motor Vehicles

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Mar 20, 2019
170 A.D.3d 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Makhoul v. N.Y. State Dep't of Motor Vehicles

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of George Makhoul, petitioner, v. New York State Department…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Mar 20, 2019

Citations

170 A.D.3d 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 2099
94 N.Y.S.3d 450