At page 684 Reviewing administrative determinations for substantial evidence4 citing cases“As the determination is supported by substantial. evidence, we decline to disturb it (see Matter of Ferrara Equip. v Martinez, 305 AD2d 411 [2003]).”
- Carver v. State, 87 A.D.3d 25 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011).publishedAccordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the respondents’ cross motion which was to dismiss the fourth cause of action alleging a violation of the FLSA insofar as asserted against the OTDA and Hansell. 3 The petitio…
- Town of Huntington v. Carpinello, 50 A.D.3d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).publishedThe petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit or not properly before this Court (see Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 [c] [5]; Matter of Stoves & Stone, Ltd. v Martinez, 17 AD3d 683, 684 [2005]; see Matter of Incorporated Vil. of West…
- Barnard v. St. Lawrence, 44 A.D.3d 1037 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007).publishedThe petitioners’ remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court (see Matter of Stoves & Stone, Ltd. v Martinez, 17 AD3d 683, 684 [2005]; Matter of Mittleberg v Shaffer, 141 AD2d 645, 645-646 [1988]; Matter of David v Chris…
- Bradley Corp. Park v. Crotty, 39 A.D.3d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007).publishedCorp. v Department of Motor Vehs. of State of N.Y., 227 AD2d 411 [1996]; see also Matter of Stoves & Stone, Ltd. v Martinez, 17 AD3d 683, 684 [2005]; Matter of David v Christian, 134 AD2d 349 [1987]), or are without merit.
v.
Raymond P. Martinez
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Raymond P Martinez, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board, dated May 20, 2002, which confirmed the findings of an administrative law judge, dated December 12, 2001, made after a hearing, that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401 (7) (F) (b) and New York City Traffic Rules and Regulations (34 RCNY) § 4-15 (b) (9), and imposed a penalty.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed, on the merits, with costs.
[*684] Judicial review of a determination rendered by an administrative body after a hearing is limited to whether that 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 Grace & Sons v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 266 AD2d 284 [1999]). Moreover, “[a] reviewing court will not undertake the functions of weighing evidence and assessing credibility, as they are committed to the Administrative Law Judge” (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 station and his training, accompanied by certificates establishing the accuracies 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 Masons v Martinez, 8 AD3d 671 [2004]; Matter of Maspeth Ave. Operating Corp. v Martinez, 2 AD3d 446 [2003]; Matter of Scara-Mix, Inc. v Martinez, supra). As the determination is supported by substantial. evidence, we decline to disturb it (see Matter of Ferrara Equip. v Martinez, 305 AD2d 411 [2003]).
The petitioner’s remaining contention was not raised in the petition, and thus has been waived (see Matter of David v Christian, 134 AD2d 349 [1987]). H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.