Beach v. Kunken

• Decision Date: 13 September 1994
• Parties: In the Matter of the Application of Matthew J. BEACH, Petitioner, v. Stephen KUNKEN, as Justice of the Incorporated Village of Huntington Bay, Hon. James A. Catterson, District Attorney of Suffolk County and Andrew W. Lawrence, Jr., Village Prosecutor of the Incorporated Village of Huntington Bay, Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 721

616 N.Y.S.2d 721

162 Misc.2d 381

In the Matter of the Application of Matthew J. BEACH, Petitioner, v. Stephen KUNKEN, as Justice of the Incorporated Village of Huntington Bay, Hon. James A. Catterson, District Attorney of Suffolk County and Andrew W. Lawrence, Jr., Village Prosecutor of the Incorporated Village of Huntington Bay, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Suffolk County Trial Term, Part 28.

Sept. 13, 1994.

John G. Poli, III, Raskin, Haas & Poli, Huntington, for petitioner.

Richard C. Cahn, Cahn, Wishod & Lamb, Melville, for Kunken and Lawrence.

James M. Catterson, Jr., Dist. Atty. of Suffolk County, Riverhead, for Suffolk County.

Ronald E. Lipetz, Asst. Dist. Atty., pro se.

ALAN D. OSHRIN, Justice.

This is a CPLR Article 78 proceeding to prohibit the Village Prosecutor of the Incorporated Village of Huntington Bay from prosecuting and the Village Justice Court of the Incorporated Village of Huntington Bay from hearing and determining the misdemeanor driving while intoxicated offenses presently filed in such court against the petitioner on the ground that the respondents have acted and continue to act without, or in excess of, their jurisdiction. Inasmuch as the very jurisdiction and power of the Village Justice Court to hear and determine the prosecution of a criminal misdemeanor proceeding are in issue, prohibition properly lies and this CPLR Article 78 proceeding is properly before this Court (see Matter of Steingut v. Gold, 42 N.Y.2d 311, 397 N.Y.S.2d 765, 366 N.E.2d 854 [1977]; Matter of State of New York v. King, 36 N.Y.2d 59, 364 N.Y.S.2d 879, 324 N.E.2d 351 [1975].

On July 5, 1993 the petitioner was arrested and charged with violations of section 1192[2] and [3] and 1120[a] of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The petitioner was arraigned, and entered a plea of not guilty as to all three charges on August 17, 1993. By Notice of Motion dated January 4, 1994, the petitioner moved to dismiss the charges of operating a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition (VTL §§ 1192[2], [3] on the ground that the "Justice Court has acted and is continuing to act without jurisdiction". The motion was opposed by Carl M. Lawrence, Assistant Village Prosecutor, Village of Huntington Bay and on April 22, 1994 the Hon. Stephen Kunken, Justice of the Village Court, issued a decision upholding the jurisdiction of the Village Court and denying the petitioner's motion to dismiss (see, People v. Beach, 161 Misc.2d 185, 613 N.Y.S.2d 552). This CPLR Article 78 proceeding ensued.

The petitioner argued before the Village Court and again before this Court that because the Village Court of the Incorporated Village of Huntington Bay is situated within a district of the Suffolk County District Court, such Village Court never obtained or acquired jurisdiction over any misdemeanor offense filed against the petitioner in that Court. Similarly, the Village Prosecutor argued before the Village Court and again before this Court that the Village Court has concurrent jurisdiction over criminal misdemeanors with the District Court within which it is situated. Upon the examination and comparison of the pertinent provisions of the Uniform Justice Court Act, Uniform District Court Act and Criminal Procedure Law, discussed below, this Court concludes that the Village Court of the Incorporated Village of Huntington Bay has concurrent jurisdiction with the Suffolk County District Court over the prosecution of criminal misdemeanors, including misdemeanors involving charges of driving while intoxicated.

Section 2001 of the Uniform Justice Court Act, which governs criminal jurisdiction and procedure, provides that:

(1) The court shall have such jurisdiction of criminal matters as is prescribed by the criminal procedure law.

(2) Unless otherwise specifically prescribed, the practice and procedure in the court shall be governed by the criminal procedure law.

(McKinney's Cons.Laws of N.Y., Book 29A--Part 2, Uniform Justice Court Act § 2001). In turn, the Criminal Procedure Law, which defines a village court as a local criminal court (see CPL 10.10[3][e] provides that:

1. Local criminal courts have trial jurisdiction of all offenses other than felonies. They have:

[a] Exclusive trial jurisdiction of petty offenses except for the superior court jurisdiction thereof prescribed in paragraph (c) of subdivision one of section 10.20; and

[b] Trial jurisdiction of misdemeanors concurrent with that of the superior courts but subject to divestiture thereof by the latter in any particular case.

2. Local criminal courts have preliminary jurisdiction of all offenses subject to divestiture thereof in any particular case by the superior courts and their grand juries.

(McKinney's Cons.Laws of N.Y., Book 11A, CPL 10.30).

With respect to the jurisdiction of village courts situated within a district court area, section 2300[d][2] of the Uniform Justice Court Act provides in pertinent part that:

a village court situated within a district of any district court shall not have the civil jurisdiction conferred in article two of this act, and its criminal jurisdiction shall be limited to that provided for in the act creating, or regulating the administration of, such district court.

(McKinney's Cons.Laws of N.Y., Book 29A--Part 2, Uniform Justice Court Act § 2300[d][2]. A reading of Article 20 of the Uniform District Court act, which governs criminal jurisdiction and procedure and Article XXIV which contains provisions supplemental to the Uniform District Court Act relating specifically to the District Court in Suffolk County reveals that there is no provision limiting, or even referring to, the criminal jurisdiction of the village courts.

In marked contrast to the supplemental provisions pertaining to Suffolk County, the supplemental provisions pertaining to Nassau County clearly limit the criminal jurisdiction of village courts within the area of the Nassau County District Court. Particularly, section 2402 (of Article XXIV--District Court Organization and Jurisdiction) provides:

All the powers, duties and jurisdiction of the justices of the peace in the several towns of the county are hereby transferred to the district court of the county and the judges thereof, and the office of justice of the peace in the several towns of the county is abolished. All the powers, duties and jurisdiction of police justices of villages in the county, except as hereinafter provided, are hereby also transferred to the district court of the county and the judges thereof. The police justices of villages in the county shall have jurisdiction of violations of the ordinances and other regulations of the village and of violations of the vehicle and traffic law committed within the limits of the village, except in cases in which the charge is operating a motor vehicle or motor cycle while in an intoxicated condition.

(McKinney's Cons.Laws of N.Y., Book 29A--Part 3, Uniform District Court Act, § 2402).

Interestingly, the original statute creating the Suffolk County District Court (L.1962, Ch. 811) did contain a provision that referred to and limited the criminal jurisdiction of the Village Courts. Section 3918 provided that the District Court would have jurisdiction over, among other things,

(4) Offenses against the law, below the grade of misdemeanors, and as to which jurisdiction is not otherwise expressly conferred by statute; provided that such jurisdiction of violations of the vehicle and traffic law committed within the limit of any village within the first judicial district, except in cases in which the charge is operating a motor vehicle or motor cycle while in an intoxicated condition, shall be concurrent with the jurisdiction of the police justice, if there be one of such village.

Section 3918(4) (which was contained in Article XXVI--Criminal Jurisdiction and Procedure) was repealed the following year (see L.1963, Ch. 570, sec. 3).

In its place, the criminal jurisdiction of the District Court derived from section 2001 of L.1963 Ch. 565 (which was the initial version of the Uniform District Court Act) which provided that:

Each of the judges of the court may sit as a court of special sessions, and as such shall have original jurisdiction of all misdemeanors committed at any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court; and, sitting as a magistrate, he shall also have jurisdiction of all offenses of a grade less than misdemeanor committed at any place within such territorial jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in each case shall be concurrent with the jurisdiction of police justices, justices of the peace or judges of city courts within such territory.

Section 2501 of L.1963 Ch. 570, which amended the Suffolk County Charter as related to the District Court of Suffolk County provided:

Application of uniform district court act. The civil and criminal jurisdiction of and practice and procedure in the district court of Suffolk County shall be as set forth in the uniform district court act.

In 1963, reading the Uniform District Court Act in conjunction with the Suffolk County Charter, the criminal misdemeanor jurisdiction of the District Court was concurrent with that of the village courts within its district. In 1970, while the previously discussed version of section 2001 was in effect (and one year before the present version was added), two Judges of the Suffolk County District Court found that the District Court had original concurrent jurisdiction with the village courts situated within the area of the District Court over misdemeanor charges of driving while intoxicated (see People v. Mulligan, 64 Misc.2d 143, 314 N.Y.S.2d 421 [1970]; People v. Salinas, 64 Misc.2d 722, 315 N.Y.S.2d 356 [1970].

Section 2001 of the Uniform District Court Act in its present form provides that:

(1) The court shall have such jurisdiction of criminal matters as is prescribed by the criminal procedure law.

(2) Unless otherwise specifically prescribed, the practice and...