| Matter of Kobel v State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehs. AppealsBd. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05276 [85 AD3d 916] |
| June 14, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Bruce P. Kobel, Petitioner, v State of NewYork Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and DavidLawrence III of counsel), for respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York StateDepartment of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board dated April 2, 2010, affirming a determination ofan Administrative Law Judge dated November 18, 2009, which, after a hearing, found that thepetitioner had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (d), and imposed a $150 fine.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding isdismissed on the merits, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the determination that he violated Vehicle and TrafficLaw § 1180 (d) by speeding is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Mataragas v New York StateDept. of Motor Vehs., 6 AD3d 537 [2004]; Matter of Gentile v Jackson, 273AD2d 235 [2000]; 15 NYCRR 126.5). The Administrative Law Judge properly relied on thetestimony of a patrol officer that he had been trained in both the visual estimation of the speed ofa motor vehicle and the operation of a laser speed-detection device. This testimony, takentogether with the officer's visual estimate of the speed of the petitioner's vehicle, as corroboratedby the reading from a calibrated laser speed-detection device, was sufficient to support thedetermination of the administrative law judge (see Matter of Clarke v Martinez, 14 AD3d 612, 612-613 [2005]; Matter of Koenigsberg v State of N.Y.Dept. of Motor Vehs. Appeals Bd., 8 AD3d 383 [2004]).
The petitioner's contention that the readout of the laser speed-detection device wasinadmissible as evidence is unpreserved for review. The petitioner's argument that the patrolofficer was not a credible witness as a matter of law is also unpreserved for review. Finally, thepetitioner's claim of bias by the Administrative Law Judge is without merit. Mastro, J.P.,Angiolillo, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.