| Matter of Rosulo v State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehs. |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 06536 [153 AD3d 1346] |
| September 20, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Robert Rosulo, Petitioner, v State ofNew York Department of Motor Vehicles et al., Respondents. |
Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C., New City, NY (John E. Finnegan of counsel), forpetitioner.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, NY (Andrew A. Amend and Mark H.Shawhan of counsel), for respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York StateDepartment of Motor Vehicles Administrative Appeals Board dated January 26, 2016, affirminga determination of an administrative law judge dated March 12, 2015, which, after a hearing,found that the petitioner had refused to submit to a chemical test in violation of Vehicle andTraffic Law § 1194 and revoked his driver license.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding isdismissed on the merits, with costs.
The findings of the administrative law judge are supported by substantial evidence (seeMatter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. ofUnion Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, WestchesterCounty, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]; Matter of Mannino v Department of Motor Vehs. of State ofN.Y.—Traffic Violations Div., 101 AD3d 880 [2012]; Matter of Hildreth v New York State Dept.of Motor Vehs. Appeals Bd., 83 AD3d 838, 839 [2011]). The evidence adduced at ahearing, including the testimony of the arresting police officer, the officer's written report of thepetitioner's refusal to submit to a chemical test, and the petitioner's own testimony, demonstratedthat the police officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner had been driving inviolation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192, that the officer had probable cause toarrest the petitioner, that after the petitioner's arrest the officer gave the petitioner sufficientwarning of the consequences of refusing to submit to a chemical test, and that three times thepetitioner refused the officer's request to submit to the chemical test (see Vehicle andTraffic Law § 1194 [2] [c]; Matter of Hickey v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 142 AD3d668, 669 [2016]; Matter of Mannino v Department of Motor Vehs. of State ofN.Y.—Traffic Violations Div., 101 AD3d at 881; Matter of Livulpi v Swarts, 100 AD3d 759, 759-760 [2012]; Matter of Sharf v New York State Dept. ofMotor Vehicles, 74 AD3d 978 [2010]).
The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit. Hall, J.P., Roman, Cohen and Barros,JJ., concur.