Defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of speeding on April 8, 1992. Defendant states that due to this guilty plea, the Department of Motor Vehicles imposed 6 points on his driver's license. Defendant now moves to vacate the judgment pursuant to C.P.L. § 440.10.

The People have filed no papers in opposition to the motion.

On this motion, the defendant seeks to vacate the speeding violation so that he may have a chance at having his driving privileges reinstated. Defendant states in pertinent part that the speeding violation, along with three alcohol related driving convictions between 1988 and 2013 is causing him to be permanently ineligible for relicensing. Defendant has an out of state DUI conviction in 1997, a DWI conviction in 2007, and a DWI conviction in 2013. Defendant also has other moving violation convictions totaling 25 points. Defendant states that lack of a driver's license is causing him an extreme financial hardship. Since 2014, he has been searching for more lucrative employment in which he can commute via public transportation but has been unable to find such work. He states that he would prefer to go back into business as a claim's consultant, but that it is not possible without a driver's license. He further states that he makes no excuses for his irresponsible conduct. He also states that in 2014, he completed the Saint Joseph's Medical Center alcohol and substance abuse counseling [*2]program. He also attends weekly Alcoholic Anonymous meetings. He states that even if the Court grants his request, he will still not be immediately eligible for relicensing. Upon re-application subsequent to the speeding conviction and points being vacated, the DMV will place a 5 year hold on relicensing, after which time he can re-apply.

On September 25, 2012, a new law, known as Commissioner's Regulation Part 132 (15 N.Y.C.R.R. § 136.5) was enacted. The law, which applies retroactively, imposes a 25 year look back period for the issuance or renewal of any application for license if the applicant has three or four alcohol/drugged-driving related convictions or incidents. If within 25 years prior to application, the applicant has been convicted of three or more drug or alcohol related offenses and one or more serious moving violations, the applicant shall be denied relicensing (15 N.Y.C.R.R. § 136.5 (b)(2)).

When a defendant pleads guilty, the Court has an obligation to ensure that the defendant's plea is knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made. To ensure that a Vehicle and Traffic Law guilty plea is properly entered, the court must inform the defendant of the rights surrendered by foregoing a trial and pleading guilty ( (People v Tinort, 5 Misc 3d 238 ( Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2004); VTL §1807). The failure to warn of collateral consequences, including the revocation or suspension of a driver's license will not warrant vacating a plea because they are peculiar to the individual and result from the action of an agency the Court does not control (People v Tinort, supra at 240; People v Hyman, 81 Misc 2d 858 (Crim. Ct. Kings Co. 1975)).

Here, the Court finds that its duty to inform the defendant of the consequences of his guilty plea was clearly met. The Court had no duty to inform the defendant that future DMV regulations could possibly impact his driving privileges (People v Wheaton, 49 Misc 3d 378 (County Ct Seneca Co. 2015)). Loss of a driver's license is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea, resulting from the action of the Department of Motor Vehicles, an agency over which this Court has no power or control.

Upon consideration of all the circumstances, this Court finds that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly and voluntarily made. As the Department of Motor Vehicles has denied defendant's application for relicensing, any further attempts to restore said license should be directed to the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (See e.g. People v Smith, 8 Misc 3d 1018(A) (City Ct. Mt. Vernon 2005); People v Forbes, 191 Misc 2d 573 (City Ct. White Plains 2002)).

The defendant's motion to vacate his plea is therefore denied.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.