65 N.Y.2d 755 (1985)

In administrative hearings, an affidavit can constitute substantial evidence if it is reliable, probative, and supported by corroborating evidence, especially when the opposing party fails to offer contradictory evidence or explanations.

Summary

Triple A Auto Driving School appealed a decision by the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) finding them in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 394 (2) for operating their business while their license was suspended. The DMV’s determination relied on an affidavit from a student stating she received and paid for lessons during the suspension period. The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision, finding that the affidavit, along with corroborating evidence (endorsed checks) and the petitioner’s failure to present counter-evidence, constituted substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s determination. This case clarifies the standard for admissibility and weight of affidavit evidence in administrative hearings.

Facts

Triple A Auto Driving School’s license to operate was suspended.
During the suspension, a student allegedly received and paid for driving lessons from Triple A.
To prove the violation, the DMV presented an affidavit from the student attesting to receiving lessons during the suspension.
Photocopies of the student’s checks, endorsed by Triple A, were annexed to the affidavit as evidence of payment.
Triple A did not present any evidence on its behalf to refute the claims or explain the endorsements on the checks.

Procedural History

The Commissioner of the DMV determined that Triple A violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 394 (2).
Triple A appealed, arguing that the affidavit was improperly admitted and did not constitute substantial evidence.
The Appellate Division upheld the Commissioner’s determination.
Triple A appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the introduction of the student’s affidavit, in lieu of oral testimony, deprived Triple A of a fair hearing.
Whether the affidavit, along with the endorsed checks, constituted substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s determination that Triple A operated its business while its license was suspended.
Whether the penalty imposed was excessive.

Holding

No, because the affidavit was supported by corroborating evidence and Triple A failed to present any contradictory evidence or explanation for the endorsed checks.
Yes, because the affidavit and endorsed checks provided evidence of such quality as to persuade a fair and detached fact finder that Triple A had violated the suspension order.
The court did not explicitly address the issue of whether the penalty was excessive, but by affirming the lower court’s decision, implicitly upheld the penalty.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the affidavit was admissible because it was supported by the testimony of the inspector who took the statement and corroborated by the student’s checks bearing Triple A’s endorsement. The court emphasized that the key evidence was the checks which bore the school’s endorsement. The court held that the evidence met the “substantial evidence test that it be of such quality as to persuade a fair and detached fact finder that petitioner had violated the suspension order on the dates in question”. (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 181).
Critical to the court’s decision was Triple A’s failure to offer any evidence on its behalf or explanation for its endorsement on the checks. This lack of counter-evidence strengthened the probative value of the affidavit and supporting checks. The court implicitly affirmed the principle that in administrative hearings, while hearsay evidence (like affidavits) may be admissible, it must possess sufficient indicia of reliability and be supported by other credible evidence to constitute substantial evidence. This case illustrates that in administrative proceedings, the failure to rebut damaging evidence can be as crucial as the evidence itself.