WHY WASN'T DRIVER'S SUSPENSION RELEVANT?

In People v. Caban, Lynette Caban was backing up her Jeep into a pedestrian right of way when she struck an elderly pedestrian and killed her. (At the time of the accident, one of the jeep's windows was taped up with a brown paper bag, causing a blind-spot in the direction from which the pedestrian was approaching.)

After a jury trial, Caban was convicted by the New York County Supreme Court of criminally negligent homicide and was sentenced to 1 to 3 years in prison.

While the Appellate Division, First Department, agreed that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, the lower court was found to have erred when it allowed the jury to hear that Caban's driver's license had been suspended. The AD1 was of the opinion the suspension of her driver's license wasn't relevant to the case or to a negligence determination. Therefore, since that information lacked "probative value" and was "highly prejudicial," the AD1 reversed and sent the matter back for a new trial.

We're wondering why it's OK for someone to be driving with a suspended license.

What's up that?