Citation Numbers: 115 A.D.2d 945, 497 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55305
Filed Date: 12/20/1985
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/28/2024
Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: The determination that petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d) (1) is supported by substantial evidence and must be confirmed (see, Matter of McKenzie v Fisher, 39 NY2d 103; Matter of Rores v Passidomo, 109 AD2d 1066). Although petitioner testified that
Further, the testimony of the Deputy Sheriff as to the functioning of the traffic-control signal was not based on hearsay and his accident report was admissible in evidence (see, Matter of Ray v Blum, 91 AD2d 822, 823). Since the witness Joh was examined before the Administrative Law Judge and cross-examined by petitioner, any error in previously admitting into evidence his written statement must be deemed harmless. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mastrella, J.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.