36 N.Y.2d 104 (1975)
In an administrative review of a determination by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles regarding the suspension or revocation of an operator’s license, the reviewing court must confirm the determination if it is supported by substantial evidence.
Summary
This case concerns the suspension of a driver’s license following an accident where the driver struck and killed a pedestrian. The Commissioner of Motor Vehicles suspended the driver’s license for 90 days, finding the driver failed to exercise due care. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision and reinstated the Commissioner’s determination, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the finding of negligence. The court emphasized the driver’s actions and inactions leading up to the accident as key factors in their decision.
Facts
On June 24, 1973, the petitioner was driving on a straight, level, and dry section of Route 9 in Schroon, New York, in the early morning. The petitioner struck and killed a pedestrian who was heavily intoxicated. The petitioner admitted to consuming alcohol shortly before the accident. The petitioner stated that she only saw the pedestrian when she was 100 feet away. She did not reduce her speed or sound her horn. She only applied the brakes when she was three car lengths away. The petitioner’s vehicle was traveling at 40-50 miles per hour upon impact.
Procedural History
The Commissioner of Motor Vehicles suspended the petitioner’s operator’s license for 90 days. The petitioner initiated an Article 78 proceeding to review the Commissioner’s determination. The Appellate Division reversed the Commissioner’s decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and reinstated the Commissioner’s original determination.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles’ determination that the petitioner failed to exercise due care to avoid a collision with a pedestrian, in violation of Section 1154 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, is supported by substantial evidence.
Holding
Yes, because the evidence presented demonstrated that the petitioner failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances, thus providing substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s determination.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the standard of review in Article 78 proceedings, stating that the reviewing court “must confirm the determination if it is supported by substantial evidence.” The court found several key pieces of evidence to be substantial. These included the driver’s consumption of alcohol, failure to observe the pedestrian until 100 feet away despite functioning headlights, failure to reduce speed or sound the horn, and the speed of the vehicle at the time of impact. The court noted that section 375 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law requires headlights to reveal objects at a minimum distance. The court considered the driver’s actions a failure to exercise due care as required by section 1154 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which pertains to a driver’s responsibility to avoid collisions with pedestrians. The court determined that, based on the totality of the evidence, the Commissioner’s determination was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. The dissent voted to affirm the Appellate Division’s decision, but the majority’s view prevailed, emphasizing the importance of upholding administrative decisions when supported by substantial evidence.