Quealy v. PassidomoQuealy v. Passidomo
Petitioner urges that respondent incorrectly interpreted the term "personal injury”, as it is used in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510 (6) (a), to include injuries sustained by the person convicted of driving while intoxicated. We cannot agree. The statute provides in pertinent part that the "commissioner shall not issue a new license, nor restore the old, in any event, where a person has been twice convicted of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated * * * where personal injury has resulted from such driving while intoxicated” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510 [6] [a]). The plain language of the statute supports respondent’s interpretation (see, Regan v Heimbach,
Next, petitioner asserts that "personal injury” was not intended to include relatively minor injuries such as he suffered. Respondent has determined that any personal injury "regardless of the extent of such injury” (
Petitioner’s additional claims, that he was improperly denied a hearing and that respondent’s decision was improperly based on hearsay, are without merit. Petitioner neither raised any factual issues nor did he request a hearing. Further, hearsay which, as here, is relevant and probative can form the basis for an administrative determination (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith,
Petitioner’s remaining arguments, not raised below, are precluded from appellate review (see, e.g., Matter of Schiavone Constr. Co. v Larocca,
Judgment affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Notes
Petitioner admits that his first conviction for driving while intoxicated involved an accident where the driver of the other vehicle sustained personal injuries.