As we explained in our case summary, the question in this case was whether substantial evidence supported the DMV’s determination that clear and convincing evidence established petitioner’s violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) § 1146(c)(1). The Court (mem.) held that the agency’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and reversed the contrary decision of the First Department.
As presented by the parties’ briefing, this case raised interesting questions about the substantial evidence standard of judicial review of an agency determination–specifically, how that standard applied where the underlying agency determination was subject to a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard. The Court’s short memorandum opinion did not engage those issues, and instead simply stated that the DMV’s decision was supported by substantial evidence without further exploring how that standard applies in the context of an administrative determination that must be made by a higher quantum of proof than merely a preponderance.
As the Court noted, the DMV’s decision was supported by a report from the accident-reconstruction specialist who investigated the incident, a report from a police officer who responded to the scene, and a statement provided by petitioner after the accident, as well as live testimony from the accident-reconstruction specialist. “On this record,” the Court held, substantial evidence supported the DMV’s decision “that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that petitioner caused serious physical injury while failing to exercise due care in violation of VTL § 1146(c).”