You are here: / / New Relicensing Regulations Can Be Applied Retroactively (Re: Alcohol-Related...
,

New Relicensing Regulations Can Be Applied Retroactively (Re: Alcohol-Related Driving Convictions)

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles had the power to retroactively apply regulations re: the relicensing of persons with three or more alcohol-related driving convictions:

… [T]here is no merit to petitioner’s contention that the Commissioner erred in retroactively applying the amended regulations to his application … . “[P]etitioner’s driver’s license is not generally viewed as a vested right, but merely a personal privilege subject to reasonable restrictions and revocation by [the Commissioner] under her discretionary powers . . . Thus, [the Commissioner] remained free to apply her most recent regulations when exercising her discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny petitioner’s application for relicensing. This is especially so in light of the rational, seven-month moratorium placed on all similarly-situated applicants for relicensing— i.e., persons with three or more alcohol-related driving convictions” … . Matter of Underwood v Fiala, 2015 NY Slip Op 08545, 4th Dept 11-20-15

 

You might also like
“Nailing” of Petition on Next to Last Day for Service, and Mailing on the Last Day, Was Sufficient—Respondent, Who Initially Declined Designation as a Candidate, Could Not Subsequently Accept Designation as a Substitute Candidate
THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED HARASSMENT AS A FAMILY OFFENSE BUT DID NOT SUPPORT AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT OR DISORDERLY CONDUCT (FOURTH DEPT).
ANONYMOUS 911 CALL COUPLED WITH POLICE OFFICER’S OBSERVATIONS PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION JUSTIFYING DETENTION OF THE DEFENDANT.
FIREFIGHTER WAS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DELAY IN HOLDING HIS DISCIPLINARY HEARING AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO BACK PAY FOR THE PRE-HEARING PERIOD OF SUSPENSION (FOURTH DEPT).
LOAN WHICH INCLUDED A SET AMOUNT DESIGNATED AS INTEREST WAS NOT USURIOUS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
UNAMBIGUOUS TERM OF INSURANCE CONTRACT CAPPING PAYMENT FOR WATER DAMAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENFORCED.
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONTINUITY OF OWNERSHIP ELEMENT OF THE DE FACTO MERGER DOCTRINE SUCH THAT THE ASSETS OF ONE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE USED TO SATISFY THE DEBT OF ANOTHER (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE SUMMARILY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WITHOUT CONDUCTING THE MANDATORY “SEARCHING INQUIRY;” NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Carrier’s Waiver of Lien on Third-Party Settlement Is Not “Compensation”... Arbitrator’s Misapplication of Law Is Not Reviewable by a Court