(Download) "Matter Harold Reape v. David L. Gunn" by Supreme Court of New York # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Matter Harold Reape v. David L. Gunn
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 30, 1989
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 69 KB
Description
DECISION, ORDER & JUDGMENT Inasmuch as the petition raises a substantial evidence question, the Supreme Court erred in
not transferring the proceeding to the Appellate Division (CPLR 7804[g]; CPLR 7803[4]; Matter of Mistler v Tofany, 39 A.D.2d
710; Matter of Dan's Living Room, Ltd. v State of New York Liq. Auth., 31 A.D.2d 799, affd 25 N.Y.2d 759). Nonetheless, since
the record is now before us, this court will treat the proceeding as if it had been properly transferred here (see, Matter
of Daigle v State Liq. Auth., 35 A.D.2d 901; Matter of Jeff's Bar & Rest. v State Liq. Auth., 27 A.D.2d 805). Upon our review of the record we find that the Transit Adjudication Bureau's determination that the petitioner committed
fare evasion is supported by substantial evidence. First, the notice of violation admitted into evidence at the hearing constitutes
prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein (see, Public Authorities Law § 1209-a[5]). Second, the officer who issued
the notice of violation presented sworn testimony at the hearing. Although the officer who issued the notice of violation
presented sworn testimony at the hearing. Although the officer had no independent recollection of issuing the notice of violation,
he testified that it was prepared in his handwriting and signed by him. He also stated that it was his practice to include
accurate information on violation notices and to charge persons with fare evasion only when he actually observed them entering
the system without paying. Further, while the petitioner challenged the officer's ability to see him enter the system, the
petitioner's own testimony placed the officer at a location from which the officer could have easily observed the unlawful
entry. We agree with the hearing officer that the petitioner's testimony denying the fare evasion is not credible. In sum,
the determination that the petitioner committed fare evasion is supported by substantial evidence (see, 300 Gramatan Ave.
Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 181).
 "Matter Harold Reape v. David L. Gunn" by Supreme Court of New York # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}