The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs. The record before us demonstrates that, on his application for an operator’s license, the petitioner did not disclose his entire record of convictions, i.e., he merely divulged his convictions for murder and assault, omitting those for burglary and trespassing. We hold this concealment, although it is not directly related to petitioner’s fitness to drive an automobile, is a legitimate ground upon which the Commissioner may exercise his broad statutory powers and deny the petitioner an operator’s license, without violating any of the petitioner’s rights under the Federal Constitution.

Even if we were to consider the question whether the Commissioner abused his discretion in denying this application, we would hold that there was no abuse of discretion (see Matter of Funaro v. Hults, 16 A D 2d 654). However, this is not to say that the Commissioner may deny petitioner a license for an indeterminate period of time merely because of the two felonies and the false statements on this application and on a previous *194one. The time may come when a denial by the Commissioner may be classified as arbitrary; bnt, under the facts before us now, there was no such abuse of discretion.

I agree that the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

The Commissioner has ample power to require information concerning an applicant’s criminal background since, in my view, criminal conduct is reasonably related to an applicant’s “ fitness ” to operate a motor vehicle. Fitness includes conduct which indicates a general regard for the law and for the safety of others. Petitioner’s criminal record discloses a 1940 conviction for burglary, a 1947 conviction for murder, and a 1961 conviction for assault. These substantive crimes are sufficient justification for denying petitioner’s application for an operator’s license at the present time.

In addition, petitioner’s concealment of his conviction for murder on his prior application for a chauffeur’s license and his concealment of his burglary conviction on this application justified the Commissioner’s exercise of discretion in denying the present application for an operator’s license.

We dissent and vote to reverse and to grant the relief asked by petitioner on these grounds: first, that section 501 (subd. 1, par. a) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law does not authorize the Commissioner to investigate an applicant’s character or morals but only his ‘ ‘ fitness ’ ’, i.e., his ability to drive a car; second, that, as construed by the court, the statute is unconstitutional as a delegation of legislative power without standards (Packer Collegiate Inst. v. University of State of N. Y., 298 N. Y. 184); and third, that the statute, as now construed and applied, violates the “privileges or immunities of citizens” provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution since it interferes with the common right to use the public highways (see Williams v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270, 274).

Judges Burke, Sgeledpi and Be-rgan concur in Memorandum ; Judge Keating concurs in a separate memorandum; Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Fuld and Van Voobhis dissent and vote to reverse in a separate memorandum.

Order affirmed.