(2) the person has three or four alcohol- or drug-related His or her lifetime, then the Commissioner shall deny the (1) the person has five or more alcohol- or drug-relatedĭriving convictions or incidents in any combination within Upon receipt of a person's application for relicensing, theĬommissioner shall conduct a lifetime review of such person'sĭriving record. Pursuant to the Septemrevision of the regulations of the respondent DMV, 15 NYCRR § 136.5 provides that: In support of the instant application, petitioner argues that although his application for relicensure should have been processed under the laws and regulations that were in effect on the date of his latest DWI related conviction, respondent DMV improperly and intentionally delayed processing his application, and improperly applied the new DMV regulations, effective September 25, 2012, retroactively. Appellant is also unable to meet the transportation requirements of his children. He cannot afford a taxi service and no mass transportation exists that will transport him from job site to job site.
#Driver assessment fee nys dmv license#
Had the regulations existed at the time of the appellant's pleas, he would not have pled guilty to any violation of VTL Section 1192.Ģ) The chemical test refusal which lead to appellant's inability to obtain a driver's license was prosecuted in a DMV hearing office, where the standard of proof and rules of evidence are a far cry from a criminal court.ģ) It has been 24 years since appellant's first alcohol-related conviction.Ĥ) Appellant is a single father of three children and needs a license in order to earn a living.
With the enactment of the new regulations, the DMV has assessed additional penalties. At the time of those pleas, the new regulations did not exist and appellant was not on notice that such pleas would affect his ability to ever receive a driver's license in the future. His arguments on appeal were that:ġ) The enactment of the new regulations is patently unfair, as appellant pled guilt to violations of VTL Section 1192(1) and Section 1192(3) while being fully aware of the consequences. Petitioner's appeal of the decision was denied by the Administrative Appeals Board of respondent DMV on Jwhich found that there was a rational basis for the decision given petitioner's driving record, including three alcohol or drug related incidents or convictions and revocation of his license for an alcohol or drug related incident or conviction (Exhibit "F": Petition). for the safety and welfare of other users of the highway." "failure to observe the rules and regulations governing the operation of a motor vehicle constitutes a serious lack of regard.
#Driver assessment fee nys dmv driver#
In its letter of February 27, 2013, denying petitioner's application, respondent DMV advised the petitioner that he was deemed a persistently dangerous driver whose driving record suggests that his Petitioner, a self described "repeat DWI offender," commenced this proceeding to challenge the denial of his application for relicensure by respondent DMV on Febru(Exhibit "D" of Petition) and the constitutionality of amended 15 NYCRR Part 136, promulgated by respondent DMV, effective September 25, 2002. The issues raised herein having been fully argued by the parties, the proceeding/action is dismissed. The decision by respondent DMV denying petitioner's application for relicensure based on the amended regulation was rationally based and neither arbitrary nor capricious. It is hereby declared that amended 15 NYCRR Part 136 at issue herein, as applied to petitioner, is not unconstitutional, illegal or violative of due process.
FIALA, as New York State Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, Respondents.Īpplication by petitioner in this hybrid Article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, to, inter alia, annul the determination of respondent Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) denying his application for relicensure and to declare 15 NYCRR Part 136, effective September 25, 2012, inter alia, unconstitutional, unlawful and ultra vires is denied. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, and, BARBARA J. Brown, Petitioner, For a Judgment Under Article 78 and Section 3001 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules In the Matter of the Application of Steven G. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
0 kommentar(er)
