BILL NUMBER:  S3627

 TITLE OF BILL :
An act to amend the vehicle and traffic law, in relation to automatic
suspension of a license and hardship privileges


This is one in a series of measures being introduced at the request of
the Chief Administrative Judge upon the recommendation of her Advisory
Committee on Criminal Law and Procedure.

This measure would amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) to
authorize a court to grant a hardship privilege to qualifying
defendants to allow operation of a noncommercial vehicle in the course
of employment for the interim period before a conditional license
application can be entertained by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.

VTL §1193(2)(e)(7)(a) provides for the automatic license suspension at
arraignment, "of any person charged with a violation of subdivision
two, two-a, three or four-a of section eleven hundred ninety-two of
this article who, at the time of arrest, is alleged to have had .08 of
one percent or more by weight of alcohol in such driver's blood as
shown by chemical analysis of blood, breath, urine or saliva, made
pursuant to subdivision two or three of section eleven hundred
ninety-four of this article."

              

If a defendant, however, can establish that the automatic suspension
will impose an "extreme hardship," the VTL permits a court to grant a
"hardship privilege" (VTL §1193(2)(e)(7)(e)). The statute defines
extreme hardship as "the inability to obtain alternative means of
travel to or from the licensee's employment, or to or from necessary
medical treatment for the licensee or a member of the licensee's
household, or if the licensee is a matriculating student enrolled in
an accredited school, college or university travel to or from such
licensee's school, college or university if such travel is necessary
for the completion of the educational degree or certificate.

Significantly, the statute "does not encompass within its definition
inconvenience to the defendant or any consideration of whether the
defendant is required, as a condition' of employment, to operate
vehicles as a properly licensed driver" (People v Correa, 168 Misc 2d
309  Crim Ct, NY County 1996 , see also People v Henderson, NYLJ, Oct.
24,2006 at 24 col 3). In Correa, the defendant was a New York City
firefighter who was required to maintain a valid driver's license for
his employment, even though he did not drive any emergency vehicles
during the work day. In Henderson, the defendant's employment duties
required him to drive to and from various job sites on a daily basis.
In both cases, the respective courts held that the statute did not
authorize the court to grant a limited license for the defendant to
drive while at work even though holding a valid license was necessary
for their employment. In cases such as these defendants risk loss of
their employment before their cases can be adjudicated.

The Commissioner of Motor Vehicles does have the power to issue a
conditional license that allows a defendant to drive during work hours
(see VTL § 1196(a)(2)). But the Commissioner can only grant the
conditional license after the defendant's license has been suspended
for 30 days (see VTL § 1193(2)(e)(7)(d)). We believe that a court
should have the authority to grant a hardship privilege in appropriate
cases to allow a defendant to use a non-commercial vehicle where
required for the defendant's employment. This measure does not allow
the court to preempt the decision of the Commissioner of Motor
Vehicles, but instead provides the court with the authority to bridge
the gap until the defendant can apply to the Commissioner of Motor
Vehicles for a conditional license.  Significantly, the measure
provides that the hardship privilege will terminate when the defendant
is able to apply for a conditional license from the Commissioner of
Motor Vehicles.

This measure, which would have no meaningful fiscal impact on the
State, would take effect 30 days after it shall have become a law.

 2008 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY :  None. New proposal.