## Facts

- The Commissioner of Motor Vehicles revoked the petitioners’ operator’s licenses and motor vehicle registrations.
- Petitioners did not pursue the statutory administrative review procedure for revocations.
- Petitioners instead filed an Article 78 proceeding seeking judicial review of the revocation determination.
- The Article 78 petition was verified by petitioners’ attorney, not by petitioners themselves.
- Petitioners were not in the county where the attorney maintained an office, prompting disputes about whether attorney verification complied with CPLR requirements.

## Issues

1. Whether petitioners who failed to use the statutorily prescribed administrative review mechanism for revocation determinations were precluded from challenging the revocations through an Article 78 proceeding.
2. Whether verification of the Article 78 petition by petitioners’ attorney was authorized under CPLR 3020(d)(3) and, if so, what compliance is required under CPLR 3021.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed, with costs.
- Because petitioners did not utilize the statutory administrative review mechanism (including Vehicle and Traffic Law § 263), they were precluded from challenging the revocations by Article 78 under CPLR 7801(1).
- The court clarified that, although attorney verification is generally disfavored, it was authorized here because petitioners were not in the county where the attorney had an office (CPLR 3020(d)(3)), subject to compliance with CPLR 3021.

## Legal Principles

- Article 78 relief is unavailable where the Legislature has provided a full administrative review procedure that the petitioner has not exhausted (CPLR 7801(1)).
- Revocations of operator’s licenses and registrations must be challenged through the specific administrative review path established by statute (including Vehicle and Traffic Law § 263) before judicial review is sought.
- Verification by an attorney is generally improper, but is expressly permitted in limited situations, including when the party is not in the county where the attorney has an office (CPLR 3020(d)(3)).
- When an attorney verifies a pleading under CPLR 3020(d), the verification must meet CPLR 3021’s requirements, including stating the basis of the verifier’s knowledge and the grounds for beliefs as to matters not based on personal knowledge.

## Conclusion

The court held that petitioners who bypass the statutory administrative review process for motor vehicle revocation determinations cannot substitute an Article 78 proceeding for that review, and it further clarified that attorney verification may be permitted when statutory conditions are met and CPLR verification requirements are satisfied.


Giambra v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles, 46 N.Y.2d 743, 413 N.Y.S.2d 643, 386 N.E.2d 251 (1978)