Matter of Car Factory Inc. v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 16, 2014
Supreme Court, Bronx County
In the Matter of Car Factory, Inc., and Robert J. Erickson, Petitioners,
against
New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, Barbara J. Fiala, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, and Deborah Dugan, Chairperson of the Appeals Board of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.
260390/2014
Attorney for Petitoners
Vincent P. Nesci, Esq.
Vincent P. Nesci, P.C.
487 E Main Street, #325
Mount Kisco, New York 10549
Attorney for Respondents
Eric T. Schneiderman
Attorney General of the State of New York
120 Broadway, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10271
Kenneth L. Thompson Jr., J.
Petitioners, Car Factory, Inc. (Car Factory), and Robert J. Erickson, (Erickson), petitions this Court pursuant to Article 78, to 1) stay, pursuant to CPLR 7805, the revocation of Car Factory's Public Inspection Station License and Erickson's Certified Motor Vehicle Inspector's License, 2) for a final judgment annulling the determination which revoked the Petitioner's licenses, 3) removal of the matter to Respondents for the imposition of a lesser penalty consistent with the determination of this Court, or in the alternative, a final judgment annulling the determination and a prohibition to the Respondents bringing any further proceedings against Petitioners.
Car Factory is licensed to perform automotive yearly inspections. Erickson is the owner
of Car Factory and Erickson is a Certified Motor Vehicle Inspector, licensed to perform motor
vehicle inspections.
It was determined by the Administrative Law Judge, (ALJ), that a substitute vehicle was
used on 17 inspected vehicles during emission testing with Erickson's Certification Card. The
penalty for revocation of the licenses of both Car Factory and Erickson was $350 for every
violation for a total of $5,950 for Car Factory and another $5,950 for Erickson and the revocation of both Car Factor's and Erickson's licenses. The Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board affirmed the ALJ's determinations.
Congress, in the Clean Air Act, has found that "the growth in the amount and complexity
of air pollution brought about by urbanization, industrial development, and the increasing use of
motor vehicles, has resulted in mounting dangers to the public health and welfare, including
injury to agricultural crops and livestock, damage to and the deterioration of property, and
hazards to air and ground transportation." 42 U.S.C.A. § 7401(a)(2). The purpose of the Clean
Air Act is "to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the
public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population." 42 U.S.C.A. §
7401(b)(1).In order to achieve the Clean Air Act's purpose, the Environmental Protection
Agency requires vehicle emission testing. "An ongoing quality assurance program shall be
implemented to discover, correct and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse and to determine whether
procedures are being followed, are adequate, whether equipment is measuring accurately, and
whether other problems might exist which would impede program performance." 40 CFR §
51.363.
Erickson does not dispute that 17 vehicles were fraudulently inspected with his
Certification Card at Car Factory. Erickson argues that a "faithless employee" used his
certification card without his permission. "Petitioner's alleged lack of awareness of the
misconduct of a certified inspector does not relieve petitioners of the responsibility for
inspection activities conducted at the facility (see 15 NYCRR 79.8 [b]; 79.17 [c] [1]; see also
Matter of Weston v Adduci, 140 AD2d 444 [2d Dept 1988])." (Matter of San Miguel Auto
Repair Corp. v State of NY Dept. of NY Dept. of Motor Vehs., 111 AD3d 422, 423 [1st Dept
2013]. Furthermore, in Matter of San Miguel Auto Repair Corp, the financial penalty and
revocation of the inspection station's license was held to "not shock our sense of fairness." Id. at
423. With respect to the revocation of the petitioners' licenses, the violations herein undermine
the integrity of the inspection process itself. Where there is a rational basis for an agency's
findings and conclusions a court may not substitute its judgment. (Howard v. Wyman, 28 NY2d
434 [1971]). It should be noted that $350 is the minimum penalty that may be imposed per
violation. One thousand dollars is the maximum. VTL 303(h). Thus, the minimum financial
penalty was imposed upon the petitioners. "[T]he test is whether such punishment is 'so
disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's
sense of fairness'.' (Matter of McDermott v. Murphy, 15 A D 2d 479, affd. 12 NY2d 780; Matter
of Stolz v. Board of Regents, 4 A D 2d 361, supra)." (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union
Free School Dist. No. 1 of Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of
Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 233 [1974]). The
penalties imposed do not shock this Court's sense of fairness, and have a rational basis.
Petitioners cite to D & B Auto Repairs, Sup. Ct. Bronx County, January 9, 2013, J.
Briganti-Hughes, M. Index No. 260678/12 to support their argument that the imposition of a
$350 fine for each petitioner for each of their separate violations and the revocation of both
petitioner's licenses amounts to a double penalty. However, D & B Auto Repairs is easily
distinguishable. In D & B Auto Repairs, the inspector and inspection station were both fined for
the same violations of VTL 303(C)(3). It was the violation of the same statute for both the
inspector and inspection station which was held to be a double penalty in D & B Auto Repairs. In
the case at bar, Car Factory was fined for violation of VTL 303(C)(3), while Erickson was fined
for violation of 15 NYCRR 79.17(c)(2). Erickson's fine, unlike the inspection station, was
imposed for failing to secure his inspection card.
Accordingly, the petition is denied in its entirety.
The foregoing shall constitute the decision and order of the Court.
Dated: 12/16/14_________________________________KENNETH L. THOMPSON JR. J.S.C.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
