I just took a look at the case summaries and I see a problem. The case involving Michael Carney involves actual state law as passed by the legislature in that he had five or more drunk driving convictions in his lifetime. A while back a motion was granted stating that all the rules were gonna be judged together and not separately. This would mean that the NY Court of Appeals would have to strike down a law that was passed by the legislature. WHAT IS THIS LAWYER DOING? It would've been better to separate Carney's case from the others. We are challenging the dictatorship of the NYDMV and not some rule that was passed by the democratic process.
The cases were consolidated because there were similar issues raised in each one and thus it made sense to do the appeals together so that they could all be resolved at once instead of piece meal. That does not mean the cases are exactly the same. Challenges were raised on appeal to both the statute in one of them and the regulation in another. The ruling on the challenge to the statute does not necessarily doom the challege to the regulation. When a court has several issues before it, it doesn't have to rule for the same side on all of them. The Court might find for the state on some issues and for the apellants on others. The court could decide that the DMV regulation exceeded the DMV's authority and yet still uphold the statute, for example. In that case, those of you who are only being held back by the regulation would get your chance to get your license.