| Matter of Cummings v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06743 [87 AD3d 1347] |
| September 30, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Patricia A. Cummings, Petitioner, v New YorkState Department of Motor Vehicles, Respondent. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Owen Demuth of counsel), forrespondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of theSupreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Erie County[Timothy J. Drury, J.], entered March 30, 2011) to review a determination of respondent. Thedetermination, among other things, found that petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law§ 1146.
It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and thepetition is dismissed.
Memorandum: We conclude in this CPLR article 78 proceeding that, contrary to petitioner'scontention, the determination to suspend her driver's license is supported by substantial evidence(see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176,181-182 [1978]; Matter of Guarino vNew York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 80 AD3d 697 [2011]). The evidence presented atthe administrative hearing established that petitioner was making a left-hand turn in her vehicleat a T-intersection when she struck and killed a pedestrian. Petitioner contends that the evidencedid not establish, however, that the pedestrian was in the crosswalk at the time of the accidentand thus that her alleged violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 is not supported bysubstantial evidence. The record belies that contention. According to both the accident reportcompleted by a police officer and the testimony of the officer at the hearing, petitioner told theofficer that she struck a pedestrian who was crossing the street "in [the] crosswalk from west toeast." Petitioner's further contention that the Administrative Law Judge should have adducedadditional evidence before rendering her decision is raised for the first time on appeal, and "'[t]he scope of [this] CPLR article 78 proceeding, following an administrative hearing, is limitedto review of the issues raised and addressed in that hearing' " (Matter of Vicari v Wing,244 AD2d 974, 976 [1997]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Peradotto, Carni, Gorski andMartoche, JJ.