Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re Hector Vargas v. State of New York

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


May 10, 2012

IN RE HECTOR VARGAS,
PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL.,
RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

Matter of Matter of Vargas v State of New York

Decided on May 10, 2012

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, Roman, JJ.

Proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Robert E. Torres, J.], entered September 26, 2011), seeking to annul a determination of respondent New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), dated January 28, 2011, which, after a hearing, affirmed petitioner's traffic conviction and imposed a fine of $130, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Upon exercising our power to review Supreme Court's order denying respondents' cross motion to dismiss this proceeding on procedural grounds (see CPLR 7804[g]; Matter of Wittie v State of N.Y. Off. of Children & Family Servs., 55 AD3d 842, 843 [2008]; Matter of Desmone v Blum, 99 AD2d 170, 177 [1984]), we find that respondent's cross motion should have been granted. It is undisputed that petitioner never served the notice of petition and petition upon respondent DMV's chief executive officer or a person designated by the chief executive officer to receive service (CPLR 307[2]). DMV's receipt of the notice of petition and petition from the Attorney General's office did not provide personal jurisdiction over the DMV (see Matter of Lowney v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 68 AD3d 551, 551 [2009]). Further, respondent State of New York is not a proper party to this proceeding since it is not a "body or officer" within the meaning of CPLR 7802(a) (see Kirk v Department of Motor Vehs., 22 AD3d 240, 241 [2005]). Were we to address the merits of the petition, we would find that substantial evidence supports the DMV's determination.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MAY 10, 2012

CLERK

20120510

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.