In mid-December of 2004, Gala's attorney stopped returning DMV's telephone calls (Claimant's Exhibit E).
Between January and December of 2004, Gala and DMV engaged in settlement discussions concerning the $80,000 fine. On December 1, 2003, Gala's DMV administrative appeal was dismissed and on Decemthe registration suspension order was re-issued with an effective date of Decem(Claimant's Exhibit E). Pinnacle registered the buses in its name and DMV issued new certificates of title for the buses to Pinnacle. During October of 2003, Gala sold and/or assigned the leases of several of the buses affected by the determination to Pinnacle. On or about August 18, 2003, enforcement of the determination was stayed, pending an administrative appeal, as a result of an Article 78 proceeding commenced by Gala (Claimant's Exhibit E). The hearing determination imposed a fine of $80,000 and a 90 day suspension of the “registrations for vehicles listed to the respondent.” The hearing resulted in a finding of more than 160 violations by Gala. The hearing concerned allegations that Gala had committed numerous violations of Article 19-A of the Vehicle and Traffic Law involving mandated background investigations of drivers employed by Gala to transport New York City pre-kindergarten school children. On June 26, 2003, the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued an administrative determination against Gala Bus Lines, Ltd. The pertinent facts underlying the motion are not disputed. (Pinnacle) opposes the motion, asserting that the claim is based on the “negligent action and/or inaction by the Department of Motor Vehicles” and that no “administrative decision was ever issued in this matter.” In particular, defendant argues that adjudication of the claim would necessarily require review of an administrative determination of a state agency which is only permissible in an Article 78 proceeding brought in Supreme Court.
Cuomo, New York State Attorney General, by Saul Aronson, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, for Defendant.ĭefendant moves to dismiss the claim on the ground that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Decided: March 07, 2008Ĭushner & Garvey, L.L.P., by Lawrence A.
0 kommentar(er)
