You are here: / / DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO DWI AND THE JUDGE REVOKED HIS DRIVERS LICENSE...
,

DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO DWI AND THE JUDGE REVOKED HIS DRIVERS LICENSE FOR ONE YEAR; THE DMV SUBSEQUENTLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION TO REINSTATE HIS LICENSE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON THE GROUND HE WAS NOT AWARE HE COULD PERMANENTLY LOSE HIS LICENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a comprehensive decision worth consulting, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his DWI conviction should not have been granted: Defendant pled guilty and Supreme Court revoked his driving license for one year. When defendant applied to reinstate his drivers license he was notified by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) that, based on his prior DWI-related convictions or incidents, his application had been denied. Defendant brought a  motion to vacate his conviction, arguing that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because the plea was based on his understanding he would lose his license for one year. Supreme Court granted the motion and the People appealed:

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground that his plea of guilty was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The subject regulation that led to the denial of the defendant’s application for relicensing did not exist at the time he entered his plea of guilty, and it would have been impossible for the court to inform the defendant of consequences flowing therefrom … . “‘The defendant’s grievance lies with the enactment and enforcement of the new regulation, not the manner of his conviction'” … .

To the extent that the potentially permanent license revocation authorized under the subject regulation is a consequence of the defendant’s instant plea of guilty at all (see People v Avital, 64 Misc 3d 483, 485 [Town of East Fishkill Just Ct, Dutchess County] [denial of relicensing under 15 NYCRR 136.5 results not from any particular conviction, but from the applicant’s “complete driving history”]), it is, as the defendant acknowledges, a collateral consequence of his plea … . * * *

… [A] consequence of a conviction must represent an exceptionally severe liberty deprivation [i.e., deportation] in order to fall within the narrow category of collateral consequences of which a defendant must be advised at the time of entering the plea. … [W]e cannot conclude that the permanent loss of a driver license fits into that category. People v Maggio, 2022 NY Slip Op 06262, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: Defendant pled guilty to DWI knowing his license would be revoked by the court for one year. His application to reinstate his license was subsequently denied by the DMV. The fact that defendant’s license could be revoked permanently by the DMV was a collateral consequence of the plea which did not affect the voluntariness of the plea. A defendant need not be aware of a collateral consequence to render a plea voluntary. The rare exception is a collateral consequence which affects a liberty interest, deportation for example.

 

You might also like
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST DAY CARE PROVIDER PROPERLY DISMISSED.
DEFENDANT SCHOOL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PROTRUDING SCREW WHICH LACERATED PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S LEG; THE SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE CANNOT, SUA SPONTE, DIRECT ARBITRATION WITHOUT A REQUEST FROM A PARTY; NON-SIGNATORIES TO AN AGREEMENT CONTAINING A FORUM SELECTION PROVISION MAY BE BOUND BY THE PROVISION IF THEY ARE SIGNATORIES TO A RELATED AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY CHARTER CONTROLLED WHERE THERE WAS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE CHARTER AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PROVISION RE: ARBITRATION OF POLICE DISCIPLINARY MATTERS.
BECAUSE PROPERTY-OWNER-DEFENDANTS UNDERTOOK SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS, THEIR FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THOSE EFFORTS DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARDOUS CONDITION REQUIRED DENIAL OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
BECAUSE THE COURT DID NOT IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE PLEAS AND SENTENCING COMMITMENTS, THE SENTENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENHANCED BASED ON THE PURPORTED VIOLATIONS OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS, INCLUDING THE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT SENTENCING, ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPELLATE COURT CONSIDERED IT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY CONDUCTED A 50-h HEARING AND THEREFORE HAD NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE 90-DAY TIME LIMIT.
HERE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT COMPLETE THE TREATMENT REQUIRED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT; THE GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE INDUCED BY AN UNFULFILLED PROMISE WHICH USUALLY REQUIRES THAT THE PLEA BE VACATED; HERE SUPREME COURT FELT DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BY THE TREATMENT PROGRAM AND PROPERLY EXERCISED DISCRETION IN FASHIONING A SENTENCE MUCH LESS THAN THAT REQUIRED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT, LEAVING THE GUILTY PLEA IN PLACE (SECOND 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

IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE TOWN DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF... DEFENSE COUNSEL STATED DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA...