Case Name: In the Matter of New York Paving, Inc., Appellant, v. Raymond P. Martinez, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2003-11-17
Citations: 1 A.D.2d 518
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of New York Paving, Inc., Appellant, v Raymond P. Martinez, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 518–519

Head Matter:
In the Matter of New York Paving, Inc., Appellant, v Raymond P. Martinez, Respondent.
[767 NYS2d 237]

Opinion:
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles dated October 18, 2001, which affirmed a determination of an Administrative Law Judge of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles dated October 11, 2000, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner violated New York City Traffic Rules and Regulations (34 RCNY) § 4-15 (b) (9) and (10) and Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401 (7) (F) (b), and imposed a penalty.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.
Judicial review of a determination rendered by an administrative body after a hearing is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence upon the entire record (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]; Matter of Liuzzo v State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehicles Appeals Bd., 209 AD2d 618 [1994]). A reviewing court will not undertake the functions of weighing evidence and assessing credibility, as those issues are committed to the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge (see Matter of Scara-Mix, Inc. v Martinez, 305 AD2d 418 [2003]).
The testimony of the traffic enforcement agent who issued the summons regarding the location of the weighing site and his training, accompanied by certificates establishing the accuracy of the devices he used in weighing the petitioner's vehicle, provided a sufficient basis for the determination of the Administrative Law Judge (see Matter of Scara-Mix, Inc. v Martinez, supra).
The determination that the petitioner violated New York City Traffic Rules and Regulations (34 RCNY) § 4-15 (b) (9) and (10) and Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401 (7) (F) (b) is supported by substantial evidence, and we decline to disturb it. Krausman, J.E, McGinity, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.