Rojo Auto Body Corp. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Upon review of the record, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support respondent’s determination that petitioner engaged in fraudulent and deceptive practices in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 398-e (1) (g) and that petitioner willfully failed to provide quality repairs in violation of 15 NYCRR 82.5 (g) (see, Matter of R & R Macintosh v State of N. Y., Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 180 AD2d 1004, 1005; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Foschio, 93 AD2d 328, 331). The contention that petitioner…