| Matter of Hall v Swartz |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03172 [61 AD3d 868] |
| April 21, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Lloyd Hall, Appellant, v David J. Swartz,Respondent, et al., Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and LauraR. Johnson of counsel), for respondent-respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York StateDepartment of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board dated January 11, 2008, which confirmed adetermination of an administrative law judge dated December 6, 2006, which, after a hearing,found that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180, imposed a fine in thesum of $180 plus a surcharge, and revoked the petitioner's driver's license.
Adjudged that the determination dated January 11, 2008, is confirmed, the petition is denied,and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the finding that he violated Vehicle and Traffic Law§ 1180 by speeding is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Namer v Martinez, 26AD3d 498 [2006]; Matter of Clarkev Martinez, 14 AD3d 612, 612-613 [2005]; Matter of Koenigsberg v State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehs. AppealsBd., 8 AD3d 383, 383 [2004]; Matter of Mataragas v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 6 AD3d537, 538 [2004]; Matter of Gentile v Jackson, 273 AD2d 235 [2000]). Theadministrative law judge properly relied on a police officer's testimony that the officer had beentrained in visually estimating speed and his visual estimate of the speed of the petitioner's car,which, together with [*2]the reading from the stationary radardevice in the officer's patrol car, were sufficient to sustain the determination that the petitionerviolated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (see Matter of Clarke v Martinez, 14AD3d at 612-613; Matter of Mataragas v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 6 AD3dat 538; Matter of DeOliveira v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 271 AD2d 607,608 [2000]; Matter of Neiman v State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehs. Appeals Bd., 265AD2d 558, 558 [1999]; Matter of Howe v Adduci, 226 AD2d 377, 377-378 [1996];Matter of Pernick v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 217 AD2d 630, 631 [1995]).
The petitioner's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event,is without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Santucci and Dickerson, JJ., concur.