AT2 Faults Justice Court for Sua Sponte Declaring Statute Unconstitutional

The Appellate Term, Second Department, 9th & 10th Judicial Districts, recently reversed a Justice Court's dismissal of an unlicensed operation of a vehicle charge on constitutional grounds.  In People v. Quiroga-Puma, the Justice Court had held that Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 502(1) and 509(1) were unconstitutional, as applied to the defendant, because they require documentation as a condition for the issuance of a driver's license.  "The court reasoned that because defendant, a non-citizen and 'presumably here illegally,' cannot satisfy the identification requirements promulgated by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, the requirements deny defendant a property right necessary to his economic well-being and violate defendant's rights under the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Privileges and Immunities Clauses, as well as the Tenth Amendment."

The Appellate Term noted several problems with the lower court's analysis and holding.  As an initial matter, the Justice Court failed to notify the Attorney General that the constitutionality of these statutes were in question and did not afford the Attorney General an opportunity to intervene, as required by Executive Law § 71 and CPLR 1012.  Moreover, the court held that there was no evidence that the defendant had standing to assert the constitutional claims that were sua sponte raised by the court on his behalf:

The record does not contain any indication that defendant is an undocumented alien. Further, the record does not indicate that defendant ever applied for a driver's license and, even assuming that he did apply and was denied a license, that the grounds for the denial were unrelated to age, the ability to pass the visual, written and performance test requirements (see generally Vehicle and Traffic Law § 502 [1] - [4]; Regulations of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles [15 NYCRR] §§ 3.3 - 5.10), or some other civil or physical impediment to obtaining a license that is unrelated to the constitutional issues herein raised, much less that the denial was, in fact, based on his failure to produce the required documentation.

(LC).