As many in the community are aware, I have been defending motorists in traffic courts all around New York since 1992. I have seen a consistent decline in the alleged impartiality of the system. In my opinion, the start of the decline was in 2019, when the Department of Motor Vehicles merged with the NYC Traffic Violations Bureau. Until then, there was at least an illusion that motorists disputed their moving violations in a judicial/legal setting. This is absolutely not the case anymore.
In February of 2026, New York State rolled out Phase 1 of DRIVES, the massive $276 million multiyear technology “modernization” project. The launch of this system enabled an overhaul of the NYS DMV Driver Point System. Under these updated rules, New York has dramatically increased penalties and made suspensions easier to impose. Points now remain active on a driver’s record for 24 months from the date of the offense, up from the previous 18 months. In addition, amassing 10 or 11 points within the 24-month window can trigger an automatic license suspension.
The administrative law judges (ALJs) have been stripped of their discretion in adjudicating cases. In the past, an ALJ had the ability to waive the suspension of an individual appearing before them, even if that individual had accumulated more than the allowed number of points in the lookback period. This would be done by looking at the totality of the evidence in front of them, the nature of the offenses, and any extenuating circumstances the motorist or attorney had presented. Now, if an administrative law judge decides to waive the suspension, the computer will institute one.
Another issue with the DRIVES system is that ALJs are being shown incorrect information in the system. For example, a third speeding violation carries a mandatory six-month revocation of one’s license. Their screen will indicate that the case before them is a third speeding violation when, in fact, it is not. The computer is not accurately assessing points and violations. This is where a knowledgeable and prepared attorney can advocate for their client and alert the ALJ to the error.
One of the most egregious ways that NYS has its finger on the scale of justice is with the rescheduling system. The commissioner’s regulations require a minimum of seven days’ advance notice if the Traffic Violations Bureau (TVB) plans on rescheduling cases. This was never an issue before. This month, Albany became aware of a specific police officer who would not be available for court the next morning and administratively changed all his dates in the system at 3 p.m. the day before. That resulted in 31 people showing up for court with no knowledge of the change. They actually had no court date. More importantly, those 31 cases should have been dismissed on the date of the court hearing for failure to prosecute. Emails sent by me and other attorneys to legal counsel for the DMV have, to date, gone unanswered.
NYS TVB has been trying to tie the hands of attorneys who seek to effectively defend their clients. The new DRIVES system also created a different platform that attorneys are required to use when hired for a specific case. This system intentionally makes it almost impossible to schedule and reschedule cases when answering a ticket. There are often no dates available online, requiring a needless request to an ALJ. The additional roadblock is that, while a motorist himself can appear in front of an ALJ to request a date in person, attorneys have to use a blind email or call-in line. It is like Russian roulette, not knowing which ALJ will respond.
The ability of a motorist to reschedule a case has been scaled back substantially. Getting even a second date requires a specific, just cause. This is happening while the TVB itself has sometimes granted seven consecutive office and administrative reschedules. As mentioned earlier, it also does so with less notice to the people. Its motivation is obtaining more guilty findings, not pursuing justice or following regulations.
Police officers have a number of acceptable reasons for not appearing in court. These trigger codes in the computer, and an ALJ generally will reschedule if it is the police officer’s first failure to appear. The problem now is that false indications are being entered by the police department. If a police officer is on vacation, the police departments are claiming he is in a different court or responding to an emergency. This has been documented multiple times by attorneys. In addition, the second time a police officer doesn’t appear, the regulations say an ALJ must dismiss unless the motorist is a substantial safety hazard. Some senior ALJs or the ALJs themselves feel pressured to make bringing motorists back twice the rule rather than the exception.
In conclusion, the current state of the NYC Traffic Violations Bureau raises serious concerns about fairness, accountability, and the fundamental right of motorists to receive a fair hearing. When administrative systems override judicial discretion, errors go uncorrected, procedural rules are applied inconsistently, and motorists face obstacles that do not appear to apply equally to the government, the integrity of the process is called into question. Until these issues are addressed and meaningful safeguards are restored, motorists should understand that contesting a ticket at the TVB may be far more complicated than simply presenting their side of the story.
Terri B. Kalker, Esq., has been helping clients fight criminal and traffic violations in the state of New York since 1992. She maintains her local office in Kew Gardens Hills and can be reached by email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..