No. 071644B.Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court. WORCESTER, SS.
July 16, 2008.
ROACH, CHRISTINE M., J.
Petitioner Todd A. Bahosh brought this action in August 2007, pursuant to Mass. G.L. Chapter 30A, section 14, to challenge a decision of the Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds (“the Board”). After a hearing on July 20, 2007, the Board affirmed the decision of the Registry of Motor Vehicles (“Registry”) to suspend Petitioner’s driver’s license for two years, beginning on May 19, 2007, which in turn was two years after his second conviction on April 25, 2005, for operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
After no activity by either side, an Order of Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution issued May 14, 2008. Petitioner filed his Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings that same day. Following hearing on June 12, 2008, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s Motion is ALLOWED.
Background
The material facts of record are as follows. On April 25, 2005, Bahosh was convicted of Operating Under the Influence, Second Offense. Bahosh was sentenced to probation, informed that his license would be revoked for two years, and ordered to surrender his license. Bahosh surrendered his license to the court. Bahosh’s license expired in the normal course in June 2006, and there is no recorded attempt at renewal. After Bahosh successfully completed probation and the term expired, he proceeded to the Registry to reinstate his license. Upon his arrival, the Registry informed Bahosh that it lacked notification of his conviction, claiming the court failed to forward the required abstract of conviction to the Registry. The Registry then informed Bahosh that his license would now be suspended for two years, effective May 19, 2007. Bahosh appealed.
At his hearing before the Board, Bahosh produced affidavits from four witnesses, all of whom testified he had not driven an automobile in at least two years. Bahosh himself testified he received rides to work each day and had not driven. The Clerk Magistrate for the Worcester District Court appeared at the hearing on Bahosh’s behalf. Bahosh also submitted documentary evidence, in two slightly different versions, each version suggesting the Registry had received the abstract bearing his name, docket number, disposition date, and registration, on June 3, 2005 from the District Attorney’s Office. The Board stated it was “confused” by this latter evidence, but concluded Bahosh failed to establish statutory hardship due to the revocation, and upheld the Registry’s decision. Babosh now appeals, claiming the Board’s decision was based upon an error of law and was arbitrary and capricious.
Discussion Standard of Review
A court may set aside an administrative agency’s final decision where the court determines plaintiffs substantial rights have been prejudiced because the decision was based upon on error of law, was unsupported by substantial evidence, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. G.L. Chapter 30A, section 14(7); Connolly v. Suffolk County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 62 Mass.App.Ct. 187, 192-93 (2004). The court must defer to the fact-finding function of the administrative body where there is substantial evidence to support its findings and there is no other error of law. Wheelock College v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 371 Mass. 130, 133 (1976). Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the agency decision. Bagley v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board, 397 Mass. 255, 258 (1986) Merisme v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liab. Policies and Bonds, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 470, 474 (1989). The reviewing court gives “due weight to the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge of the agency, as well as to the discretionary authority conferred.
Page 1