DAHLGREN, RALPH v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF, MOTOR VEHICLES ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1442
    CA 14-01050
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.
    IN THE MATTER OF RALPH DAHLGREN,
    PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
    V                             MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
    AND BARBARA FIALA, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK
    STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
    RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.
    ANTHONY J. LANA, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
    ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (JEFFREY W. LANG OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County
    (Deborah A. Chimes, J.), entered August 22, 2013 in a proceeding
    pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed without costs.
    Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner
    appeals from a judgment that dismissed his petition seeking to annul a
    determination of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (Commissioner).
    The Commissioner granted petitioner’s application for relicensing and
    imposed an A2 restriction on petitioner’s license for a period of five
    years, thereby requiring petitioner to install an ignition interlock
    device on any motor vehicle he owns or operates (see 15 NYCRR 136.5
    [b] [3] [ii]). We agree with the Commissioner that Supreme Court
    properly dismissed the petition and now affirm.
    The decision to relicense a driver after a period of mandatory
    revocation is within the sound discretion of the Commissioner (see
    Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 510 [5]-[6]; 1193 [2] [c] [1]; 1194 [2] [d]
    [1]; 15 NYCRR 136.1 [a]). If the Commissioner grants an application
    for relicensing after a person’s license has been revoked for an
    alcohol- or drug-related offense, and such person has had three or
    four alcohol- or drug-related driving convictions within the 25-year
    look back period (see 15 NYCRR 136.5 [a] [3]), the Commissioner must
    impose a restriction “on such person’s license for a period of five
    years and shall require the installation of an ignition interlock
    device in any motor vehicle owned or operated by such person for such
    five-year period” (15 NYCRR 136.5 [b] [3] [ii]).
    -2-                          1442
    CA 14-01050
    Here, petitioner had his license revoked on September 14, 2000 as
    a result of a conviction of driving while intoxicated (see generally
    Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192). Within the 25 years preceding the
    offense, petitioner had twice been convicted of driving while ability
    impaired (see generally id.). Petitioner thus had three alcohol-
    related driving convictions within the 25-year look back period (see
    15 NYCRR 136.5 [a] [3]). He applied for a new license on June 15,
    2012, and the Commissioner granted the application and imposed the
    ignition interlock restriction on petitioner’s license in accordance
    with 15 NYCRR 136.5 (b) (3) (ii).
    We reject petitioner’s contention that his license should not be
    subject to the ignition interlock restriction because he waited nearly
    10 years to apply for a new license. The Commissioner’s regulations
    permit the imposition of the A2 restriction upon granting an
    application for a new license without regard to how long the applicant
    has been without one. That rule is in keeping with the Commissioner’s
    “responsibility to provide meaningful safeguards for the general
    public who are users of the highways . . . [and] to take disciplinary
    action in order to force a change in the attitude and driving habits
    of problem drivers” (15 NYCRR 136.1 [a]).
    As to petitioner’s remaining contentions, we conclude that the
    delay in processing petitioner’s application was neither unlawful nor
    an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Scism v Fiala, 122 AD3d 1197,
    1198; see generally Hyslip v Sloan, 124 AD2d 1060, 1061, lv denied 69
    NY2d 611, cert denied 
    484 US 914
    ), and that the Commissioner properly
    applied the “25 year look back period” (15 NYCRR 136.5 [a] [3]; see
    Matter of Funes v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 
    2013 NY Slip Op 31082
    [U], *1).
    Entered:   January 2, 2015                      Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA 14-01050

Filed Date: 1/2/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/2/2015