The New York Court of Appeals ruled Monday that the Department of Motor Vehicles can proceed with license suspensions based on written police reports even when subpoenaed officers fail to appear at administrative hearings, resolving a decades-old question about due process rights in license revocation proceedings.
In *Matter of Monaghan v. Schroeder*, decided Dec. 16, 2025, Chief Judge Wilson wrote for the court that existing subpoena enforcement procedures under CPLR 2308(b) provide sufficient constitutional protection for motorists facing license suspension. The decision addresses an issue left unresolved since the court's 1988 ruling in *Gray v. Adduci*.
John Monaghan challenged his license suspension after the DMV proceeded with his case despite the failure of officers to appear at his hearing. Monaghan had properly subpoenaed the officers who authored reports documenting his refusal to submit to a chemical test, but the officers did not appear as directed.
Monaghan argued that his due process right to confront and cross-examine witnesses was violated when the Administrative Law Judge allowed the DMV to rely solely on written police reports in the absence of the officers who wrote them. He contended that the confrontation right, fundamental to criminal proceedings, should extend to administrative hearings that could result in the loss of driving privileges.
The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the existing legal framework provides adequate procedural safeguards. The court emphasized that CPLR 2308(b) establishes specific procedures for enforcing subpoenas in administrative proceedings, and motorists must utilize these mechanisms before claiming due process violations.
"CPLR 2308(b)'s procedures for subpoena enforcement provide sufficient process," Chief Judge Wilson wrote for the court. "Absent a motorist's use of those procedures, due process does not require the exclusion of hearsay evidence or dismissal of the charge."
The decision establishes that motorists cannot simply claim constitutional violations when officers fail to appear without first attempting to enforce their subpoenas through proper legal channels. The court noted that Monaghan "did not seek enforcement of the subpoenas" and made "no claim that the Administrative Law Judge obstructed or penalized him for any such efforts."
This ruling clarifies the scope of due process protections in DMV proceedings, distinguishing them from criminal trials where the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause provides more robust protections. Administrative hearings, while affecting important liberty interests like the right to drive, operate under different procedural standards than criminal prosecutions.
The case originated from a license revocation proceeding where Monaghan was accused of refusing to submit to chemical testing. Such refusals typically result in automatic license suspensions under New York's implied consent law, which requires drivers to submit to chemical testing when lawfully arrested for driving while intoxicated.
The *Gray v. Adduci* precedent, decided in 1988, had left open the specific question addressed in *Monaghan*. That case dealt with similar due process issues in DMV proceedings but did not definitively resolve whether the failure of subpoenaed officers to appear required dismissal of charges or exclusion of their written reports.
Eric Sills represented Monaghan on appeal, while Owen Demuth appeared for respondents including Mark Schroeder, who appears to be a DMV official involved in the administrative proceeding.
The ruling has significant implications for thousands of license revocation proceedings conducted annually by the DMV. Administrative Law Judges will now have clearer guidance on how to handle cases where subpoenaed officers fail to appear, reducing uncertainty about whether proceedings must be dismissed or postponed.
The decision also reinforces the principle that administrative agencies can rely on documentary evidence, including police reports, even when the authors of those documents are unavailable for cross-examination. This approach balances efficiency concerns in administrative proceedings with constitutional due process requirements.
For motorists facing license suspension, the ruling emphasizes the importance of actively pursuing subpoena enforcement through proper legal channels rather than passively waiting for officers to appear. Those who fail to utilize available enforcement mechanisms will find it difficult to later claim constitutional violations.
The opinion, published as 2025 NY Slip Op 06959, remains subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. The New York State Law Reporting Bureau published the decision pursuant to Judiciary Law Section 431.
The ruling provides clarity for both the DMV and motorists about procedural requirements in license revocation cases, potentially reducing appeals and ensuring more consistent application of due process standards across administrative hearings statewide.