You are here: / / Department of Motor Vehicles Did Not Exceed Its Powers In Promulgating...
,

Department of Motor Vehicles Did Not Exceed Its Powers In Promulgating Regulations Re: Lifetime Revocation of Driver’s Licenses, Five-Year Stay of Relicensure, and Subsequent Five-Year Restricted License/Ignition Interlock Period for Alcohol-Related Convictions

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, over a two-justice dissent, determined that petitioner’s challenges to Department of Motor Vehicles’ (DMV’S) regulations re: (1) the lifetime revocation of a driver’s license for alcohol-related convictions, (2) the five-year stay of relicensure for persons with three alcohol-related convictions, and (3) the subsequent five-year period with the imposition of a restricted license and installation of ignition interlock device, were properly dismissed as nonjusticiable (petitioner not yet affected by any of them). The court went on to determine the DMV, by promulgating these regulations, did not encroach upon the powers of the legislature. The dissenters argued that some of the challenges were justiciable and the DMV in fact exceeded its powers by mandating a five-year stay of relicensure for anyone with three alcohol-related convictions within a 25-year lookback, as well as the subsequent five-year period allowing only a restricted license with the installation of an ignition interlock device. The majority explained the general principles for analyzing whether an agency has exceeded its powers:

To determine whether an administrative agency has usurped the power of the Legislature, courts must consider whether the agency: (1) “operat[ed] outside of its proper sphere of authority” by balancing competing social concerns in reliance “solely on [its] own ideas of sound public policy”; (2) engaged in typical, “interstitial” rulemaking or “wrote on a clean slate, creating its own comprehensive set of rules without the benefit of legislative guidance”; (3) “acted in an area in which the Legislature has repeatedly tried — and failed — to reach agreement in the face of substantial public debate and vigorous lobbying by a variety of interested factions”; and (4) applied its “special expertise or technical competence” to develop the challenged regulations (Boreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d at 12-14 …).  Matter of Acevedo v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2015 NY Slip Op 06467, 3rd Dept 8-6-15

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA; DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA; AND DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE DECIDED AGAINST PLEADING GUILTY HAD HE BEEN GIVEN ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE RISK OF DEPORTATION (THIRD DEPT).
Court Erred In Failing to Hold a Restitution Hearing—No Support In Record for Amount Imposed
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE VICTIM’S JAW WAS FRACTURED, THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT PROOF THE VICTIM SUFFERED “SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF PENAL LAW SECTION 10 (10); DEFENDANT’S ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION WAS REDUCED TO ASSAULT THIRD (THIRD DEPT).
TUTORS WERE EMPLOYEES OF TUTORING CENTER.
​ THE MAJORITY HELD THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH DISORDERLY CONDUCT AS A FAMILY OFFENSE, FINDING THE CONDUCT WAS NOT “PUBLIC;” THE DISSENT ARGUED THE CONDUCT WAS “PUBLIC” IN THAT IT TOOK PLACE IN THE PRESENCE OF ADULTS AND CHILDREN OUTSIDE A DAYCARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT).
EXPOSURE TO AND CONTRACTION OF COVID-19 IN THE WORKPLACE IS AN UNUSUAL HAZARD WHICH IS COMPENSABLE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMMPENSATION LAW; HOWEVER HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF DECEDENT CONTRACTED COVID-19 AT HIS WORKPLACE (THIRD DEPT).
A PERSON NOT NAMED ON THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE IS NOT ENTITLED TO RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, NOTWITHSTANDING CORRESPONDENCE REQUESTING THAT HE BE ADDED TO THE DOCUMENTS AS A BORROWER (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS WARNED HE WOULD BE SENTENCED EVEN IF HE DIDN’T APPEAR AT SENTENCING, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SENTENCED DEFENDANT IN ABSENTIA WITHOUT FIRST INQUIRING INTO THE REASON AND WHETHER DEFENDANT COULD BE LOCATED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Question of Fact Whether Firefighter’s Injury Was Proximately Caused by... International Bank With a Branch in New York Was Required to Comply with an...