Judge Louis L. Nock

Sela moved to modify an ignition interlock device (IID) requirement imposed as a mandatory part of his sentence after pleading guilty to Vehicle & Traffic Law §1192(2). He alleged he had five vehicles, but only drove one, while one, a 2003 Nissan, was inoperable, and the other three—a 2016 Mercedes, a 2016 Kia Optima and 2014 Kia Sportage—were driven solely by other family members. Prosecutors did not oppose the motion. Yet, the court noted under VTL §1193(1)(b)(ii) installation and maintenance of an IID was mandatory on any vehicle owned or operated by a person convicted of §1192(2). As the three vehicles utilized by the other family members were leased by Sela for over 30 days, they were deemed owned by him. Accordingly, the three family-used vehicles were required to have an IID installed. However, the court stated the inoperable vehicle was not a car requiring installation of an IID as defined by the VTL or Penal Law. It stated requiring installation of an IID on an inoperable car did nothing to further the purpose of §§1193 and 1198. Therefore, the court held the inoperable Nissan, affirmed to be inoperable by Sela's counsel was not a motor vehicle requiring installation of the IID.

Judge Louis L. Nock