Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Division of Motor Vehicles v. Levine

Decided: May 16, 1983.

DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
v.
JOSEPH LEVINE, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT



On appeal from New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles.

Fritz and Joelson. The opinion of the court was delivered by Fritz, P.J.A.D.

Fritz

Appellant seeks to reverse an order of the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles suspending his driving privilege for one year and requiring "a drivers re-examination" consequent upon his involvement in an intersection accident resulting in a death. The Director evidently accepted the findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations of an administrative law judge following a plenary hearing on notice.*fn1

The notice of proposed suspension which eventuated in the hearing charged appellant with having violated N.J.S.A. 39:4-119 in his having "failed to stop and yield at intersection controlled with a red flashing beacon," and with careless driving, an offense described in N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.

Appellant sets forth a number of arguments in his brief:

POINT I. The findings by the Administrative Law Judge and the Director of Division of Motor Vehicles were arbitrary capricious and unsupported by the evidence and should be reversed.

A. The Director of Motor Vehicles has failed to establish defendant's violation of traffic offenses for which the proposed suspension is based.

B. The testimony of Sheila Olcsvary was incredible, and the acceptance of her testimony by the Administrative Law Judge was an abuse of discretion.

C. The statement of Denise King dated September 28, 1979, was inadmissible hearsay and should have been excluded.

POINT II. A suspension of defendant's driving privileges would be an abuse of discretion under the facts and circumstances of the case.

POINT III. The Director's notice of suspension which merely cites the statutory offenses constitutes a denial of due process in that it fails to specify the precise grounds for suspension.

With the single exception of an issue of law, which we consider below, we are satisfied these clearly lack ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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