Matter of Sharf v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles
2010 NY Slip Op 05011 [74 AD3d 978]
June 8, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 25, 2010


In the Matter of Barry Sharf, Petitioner,
v
New York StateDepartment of Motor Vehicles et al., Respondents.

[*1]Weinstein Group, P.C., Hauppauge, N.Y. (Lloyd J. Weinstein of counsel), forpetitioner.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and SudarsanaSrinivasan of counsel), for respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the AdministrativeAppeals Board of the respondent New York State Department of Motor Vehicles dated April 28,2009, confirming a determination of an administrative law judge, dated December 12, 2008,which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner had refused to submit to a chemical test inviolation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, and revoked his driver's license.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding isdismissed on the merits, with costs.

A review of the record clearly demonstrates that the findings of the administrative law judgeare supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union FreeSchool Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d222, 231-232 [1974]). The evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated that the police hadreasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner had been driving in violation of Vehicle andTraffic Law § 1192, that the police lawfully arrested the petitioner, that the police gave thepetitioner sufficient warning of the consequences of refusing to submit to a chemical test, andthat the petitioner refused to submit to the chemical test (see Vehicle and Traffic Law§ 1194 [2] [c]; Matter of Liebel v Jackson, 261 AD2d 474 [1999]).

The petitioner's remaining contention is not properly before this Court, as it was not raised atthe administrative hearing (see Matter of Gonzalez v State Liq. Auth., 30 NY2d 108, 112[1972]; Matter of Myles v Doar, 24AD3d 677, 678 [2005]; Matter of Ambery v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept.,Art. I-B Pension Fund, 298 AD2d 582 [2002]). Mastro, J.P., Eng, Leventhal and Roman, JJ.,concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.