Justice Joseph Santorelli
King sought to vacate Kay’s decision to temporarily suspend her driver’s license under Vehicle and Traffic Law §510(3-a). Kay, a District Court judge, argued suspension was proper pending prosecution of King for violations of VTL §§1192(2-a) and 1192(3). At the time of her not guilty plea at arraignment, King’s license to drive was suspended under §1193(2)(e)(7)the prompt suspension law. The court concluded Kay’s decision to temporarily suspend King’s license was purely administrative in nature, thus reviewable by the Supreme Court. The court found, however, that courts differed on the interpretation of §510(3-a), but it concluded the statute did not support Kay’s reading and interpretation. The court noted the legislature recodified the VTL in relation to alcohol-related offenses, stating if the legislature intended §510(3-a) to govern violations of §1192, it would have been addressed in the recodification, but was not. Instead, the court noted the prompt suspension law was enacted to address violations and suspensions. Thus, the court ruled §510(3-a) did not authorize a temporary suspension without a finding the suspension was permissive under §510(3), concluding Kay made no such finding. Hence, Kay’s decision was annulled.