An area man is suing the state Department of Motor Vehicles after it rejected his application to receive a driver’s license.

Jeffery L. Bellomo has filed suit in state Supreme Court in Mayville asking the court to annul the Motor Vehicles Department’s denial of Bellomo’s request to reinstate his revoked driver’s license after a series of alcohol-related convictions on his driving record. Bellomo applied for a driver’s license in September 2024, with that application denied in October 2024. That decision was appealed and affirmed by the Motor Vehicles Appeal Board and denied again in February 2025. Bellomo is challenging the appeals board’s decision to restore Bellomo’s revoked driver’s license.

The crux of Bellomo’s argument is an August 2018 charge of chemical test refusal in the town of Carroll. DMV officials say that charge, combined with three driving while intoxicated convictions and a driving while impaired conviction, all taking place from 2000 through 2018. The DMV says the denial of Bellomo’s application is warranted because the record it reviewed showed five alcohol or drug-related driving convictions or incidents.

“Given appellant’s driving record, the denial of appellant’s application for reissuance of a driver’s license had a rational basis, was authorized by Vehicle and Traffic Law and Commissioner’s Regulations, and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. … Appellant’s challenges to Commissioner’s Regulations Section 136.5(a)(2) and 132.1(d), which do not serve as a basis for denial, present conjectural and irrelevant arguments which will not be considered.”

Bellomo’s attorney, Emanuel Moganis of Brockport, argues the record is incorrect and that the Carroll Town Court dismissed all of the 2018 charges related to refusing a chemical test and should not be considered by the DMV when considering Bellomo’s request.

“At the time the petitioner applied for his license in the instant case, the New York DMV policy was only to exclude drivers with five convictions and/or incidents during their lifetime,” Moganis wrote. “Therefore, the Court of Appeals has never upheld lifetime revocation for a driver with the same fact pattern as the petitioner.”

Moganis also argues in his court filing that the Motor Vehicles Department’s 25-year lookback conflicts with the state’s Vehicle and Traffic Law and that the denial is based on new regulations and not the regulations in effect at the time of Bellomo’s last DWI offense is an impermissible retroactive application of the regulations and violates the U.S. Constitution’s ban on ex post facto penalties,

“Essentially, at the time the offense was committed, the revised (section of law) is not sufficiently precise so as to put drivers on notice that their application for relicensing may be denied based on three alcohol-related offenses, the regulations at issue are unconstitutional and violative of due process,” Moganis wrote.