In this CPLR Article 78 proceeding the Petitioner asked the Appellate Division to annul the determination of a New York State Department of Motor Vehicle Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] revoking his driver's license for 180 days based upon the ALJ's finding that Petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §1111 by failing to stop at a stop light, resulting in the death of a pedestrian.
The Appellate Division unanimously confirmed the ALJ's rulings, without costs, and dismissed the petition, explaining:
1. Petitioner contended that the ALJ "improperly relied on hearsay [evidence] contained within a police accident reconstructionist's report". Citing Matter of Sadallah v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 160 AD3d 1482, the Appellate Division found that the ALJ's determination was supported by substantial evidence, observing that "Evidence which would not be admissible in a court, such as hearsay, is admissible in a departmental hearing"* and "if sufficiently relevant and probative may constitute substantial evidence".
In this instance, said the court, "the testimony of the officer who interviewed eyewitnesses and the [police accident reconstructionist's] report were sufficient to establish that [Petitioner] violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §1111 by entering the intersection while the light was red and striking the pedestrian in the far cross-walk approximately four seconds after the traffic control device turned from yellow to red."
2. Petitioner contended that he was improperly deprived of an opportunity to cross-examine the author of the accident reconstruction report.
In the words of the Appellate Division, "that contention lacks merit; [Petitioner] could have called the author [of the report] as a witness".
3. The Appellate Division rejected Petitioner's argument that it was improper for the ALJ to "draw a negative inference from [Petitioner's] failure to testify".
4. As Petitioner did not argue on administrative appeal that a belated hearing notice deprived the ALJ of jurisdiction to hear the matter, the Appellate Division said Petitioner "failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to that contention".
5. Contrary to Petitioner's argument, the Appellate Division concluded that "a suspension of [Petitioner's] license for 180 days is not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness".
The Appellate Division unanimously confirmed the ALJ's decision without costs and dismissed the Article 78 petition challenging it.
* 15 NYCRR 127.6 [b]
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.