Legal Opinion

Weston v. Adduci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 9, 1988PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The petitioner claims that because the respondents’ investigator failed to specifically identify the individual who performed the allegedly inadequate vehicle inspection, the determination is not supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). His own testimony, however, identifying the employee and acknowledging that an inspection was conducted, vitiates this argument. Moreover, the petitioner was not deprived of a fair hearing. The record discloses that the petitioner had an ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness who gave material testimony…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Purdy v. KreisbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
  2. Schaubman v. BlumNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  3. Erdman v. IngrahamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1967

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Car Factory, Inc. v. New York State Department of Motor VehiclesNew York Supreme Court · 2014
  2. San Miguel Auto Repair Corp. v. State of New York Department of Motor VehiclesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
  3. San Miguel Auto Repair Corp. v. State of New York Department of Motor VehiclesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API