Opinion
No. 16842 Index No. 153162/20 Case No. 2022-02212
12-08-2022
Uchenna Ugo-Alum et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, Defendant-Appellant.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York (Dennis Fan of counsel), for appellant. Frank LLP, New York (Gregory A. Frank of counsel), for respondents.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York (Dennis Fan of counsel), for appellant.
Frank LLP, New York (Gregory A. Frank of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Kern, J.P., Gesmer, Kennedy, Scarpulla, Rodriguez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander Tisch, J.), entered on or about March 22, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Although couched in terms of constitutional violations, the gravamen of the complaint seeks to challenge respondent New York State Department of Motor Vehicle's (DMV) suspension of plaintiffs' New York State driving privileges as arbitrary and capricious on grounds that they were not properly notified of the Drivers Responsibility Assessment (DRA) imposed on them (see e.g. Rosenthal v City of New York, 283 A.D.2d 156, 157-158 [1st Dept 2001], lv dismissed 97 N.Y.2d 654 [2001]; Thrun v Cuomo, 112 A.D.3d 1038, 1041 [3d Dept 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 865 [2014]). Because plaintiffs' claims are cognizable under CPLR article 78, they are time-barred by the four-month statute of limitations (CPLR 217[1]; see Solnick v Whalen, 49 N.Y.2d 224, 229, 233 [1980]; Gress v Brown, 20 N.Y.3d 957, 959-960 [2012]).
Contrary to plaintiffs' contentions, the fact that they also pleaded constitutional violations is of no moment, as such claims can also be brought in an article 78 proceeding (see e.g. Matter of Ding Sheng Realty Corp. v City of New York, 179 A.D.3d 514, 515 [1st Dept 2020] [Eighth Amendment challenge to imposition of administrative fine]; Matter of Levitsky v Swarts, 101 A.D.3d 879, 879-880 [2d Dept 2012] [due process challenge to revocation of vehicle registration and license plates]).