As of now, all people that require a substance abuse screening or assessment are required to submit to a drug test, consent to having the evaluator look at their DMV Driving Abstract, arrest information as well as allow the evaluator to contact a significant other who will be questioned regarding the arrest.
Starting in 2012, the NYS DMV and OASES worked together in creating a data base called Impaired Driver System (IDS).This will eliminate the former paper submission of DS-449 to the DMV.The DS-449 forms were needed for those looking to restore their driving license.
As of now, all people that require a substance abuse screening or assessment are required to submit to a drug test, consent to having the evaluator look at their DMV Driving Abstract, arrest information as well as allow the evaluator to contact a significant other who will be questioned regarding the arrest.
Starting in 2012, the NYS DMV and OASES worked together in creating a data base called Impaired Driver System (IDS).This will eliminate the former paper submission of DS-449 to the DMV.The DS-449 forms were needed for those looking to restore their driving license.
Defendant, Roberta Gazzola’s, son, Christopher, was arrested and charged with Driving While Impaired. He was driving his mother’s car without her permission at the time. According to Nassau County Administrative Code § 8-7.0(g)(4)(a), Christopher was given a “Vehicle Seizure Notice” at the time of his arrest. The County commenced this action seeking civil forfeiture of the vehicle against the Gazzolas and Daimler-Chrysler, the company Roberta purchased the vehicle from. Daimler-Chrysler then filed a cross-claim seeking to repossess the vehicle based on an “innocent lienholder” defense. The Gazzolas then cross-moved for dismissal, claiming to be an “innocent owner”.
The County, though able to establish that the car was used in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192, failed to establish that Ms. Gazzola gave Christopher permission to use her car, that she had any reason to believe that he would do so or that he would do so in an illegal fashion. The County recognizes that Daimler-Chrysler had a superior right to the vehicle but not over defendant since the circumstances that would have given Daimler-Chrysler the right the repossess the vehicle from Ms. Gazzola were not demonstrated here.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the complaint and all cross-claims. Roberta Gazzola’s motion was granted and it was declared that neither the County nor Daimler-Chrysler had rights superior to her on her vehicle.
