Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

JOSEPH R. NAGLICH v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (12/19/84)

decided: December 19, 1984.

JOSEPH R. NAGLICH, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND NAGLICH AUTO SALES, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, PETITIONERS
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE BOARD OF MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS, DEALERS AND SALESMEN, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the State Board of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, Dealers and Salesmen, in case of State Board of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, Dealers and Salesmen v. Joe Naglich Auto Sales, Inc. and Joseph R. Naglich, No. 82-MV-726.

COUNSEL

Joseph J. Malizia, Joseph J. Malizia, P.C., for petitioners.

Michele P. Monaghan, Board Counsel, with her, Jerome P. Grossi, Counsel, Joyce McKeever, Chief Counsel, Professional & Occupational Affairs and David F. Phifer, Chief Counsel, Department of State, for respondent.

Judges MacPhail, Barry and Colins, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.

Author: Macphail

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 479]

Joseph R. Naglich and Joe Naglich Auto Sales, Inc. (Petitioner) appeal here from a decision of the State Board of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, Dealers and Salesmen (Board) which ordered that Petitioner's salesman and dealer licenses be revoked.

The Board concluded as a matter of law that Petitioner had violated Section 5 of the Motor Vehicle Salesmen's License Act (License Act), Act of September 9, 1965, P.L. 499, as amended, 63 P.S. § 805,*fn1 by knowingly making a substantial misrepresentation of a material fact. The Board found that Petitioner failed to disclose the true mileage of a vehicle when he sold the vehicle.

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 480]

In our review of this decision, this Court must affirm the Board's adjudication unless we find that Petitioner's constitutional rights have been violated, the adjudication is not in accordance with the law, or necessary findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704.

Petitioner questions the admission into evidence of various copies of documents from New York state.*fn2 We find that the document identified as exhibit C-5 was improperly admitted into evidence because it fails to conform to Section 5328(a) of the Uniform Interstate and International Procedure Act, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5328(a).*fn3 Those pages of the document identified as exhibit C-6 which are copies of documents from New York state were also improperly admitted. Although the Pennsylvania records in exhibit C-6 conform to the requirements of Section 6103 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 6103, the mere fact that documents from another state are kept with Pennsylvania records does not validate those documents independently of Section 5328(a) of the Uniform Interstate and International Procedure Act.

Since the documentary evidence regarding the alleged illegal act must be excluded, the substantial evidence supporting the Board's finding that Petitioner violated Section 5 of the License Act must be found in the evidence relating to Petitioner's payment of a fine and costs pursuant to a citation for tampering

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 481]

    with an odometer,*fn4 a violation of Section 1112(c) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1112(c).*fn5 Petitioner argues, however, that such evidence is inadmissible pursuant to the provisions of Section 6142 of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.