Minor gaps and errors in the hearing transcript made at an administrative hearing did not preclude meaningful review of the hearing
Faisal v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2015 NY Slip Op 09431, Appellate Division
Muhammad Faisal brought an Article 78 action to review a determination of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board confirming a determination of an administrative law judge [ALJ]. The ALJ, after a hearing, found that Faisal violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §1180(d), speeding, and revoked his driver license.
The Appellate Division confirmed the Appeals Board ruling on the merits, explaining that the Board’s determination was supported by substantial evidence.
The court noted that the ALJ had “properly relied on the police witness's testimony concerning his visual estimate of the speed of the petitioner's vehicle as well as the reading of the radar device.”
The Appellate Division noted that there was a significant difference between the posted speed limit, which was 40 miles per hour, and the 70 miles per hour at which the police witness visually estimated the speed of Faisal’s vehicle, an estimation that was promptly confirmed by a radar indication that the actual speed was 71 miles per hour.
In the present action Faisal raised certain evidentiary objections that the court said were not raised at the administrative hearing, “when any alleged error might have been cured” and thus these arguments were unpreserved for review.
Also noted were the alleged “minor gaps and errors in the hearing transcript” but, said the court, such alleged omissions do not preclude meaningful review of the hearing.
Faisal’s petition alleged that a police sergeant was the sole witness at the hearing. In contrast, said the court, there is no indication anywhere in the record that Faisal was sworn in as a witness.
However, even assuming that the transcript of the hearing omits certain unsworn statements supposedly interjected by Faisal at some point during the course of the hearing, as alleged in his affidavit submitted to the Appeals Board, the Appellate Division ruled that those statements would not affect the validity of the determination under review.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: