People ex rel. Williams v. Crouch

CourtNew York Court of Special Sessions
Writing for the CourtDonald H. Mead
Citation274 N.Y.S.2d 642,51 Misc.2d 898
Decision Date11 October 1966
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. F. H. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. Virginia H. CROUCH, Defendant.

Page 642

274 N.Y.S.2d 642
51 Misc.2d 898
The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. F. H. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
Virginia H. CROUCH, Defendant.
Court of Special Sessions of Village of Elbridge, Onondaga County.
Oct. 11, 1966.

Page 643

Virginia H. Crouch, pro se.

Francis Moran, Dist. Atty. (Leo Hayes, Syracuse, of counsel), for plaintiff.

ROGER SCOTT, Police Justice.

Defendant moves to dismiss the uniform traffic complaint number 1395197 which accuses her of speeding on September 30, 1966, in violation of section 1180(b), par. 3 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York.

The basis of the motion is that the Court has no jurisdiction over the defendant since a proper complaint has not been filed with the Court alleging the commission of the offense by the defendant. The defendant was issued a summons which purportedly was a uniform traffic summons pursuant to section 147--e of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The arresting officer filed with the Court what purported to be a complaint bearing the same number as the summons issued to the defendant. It is obvious from the complaint that all the information filled in on the complaint is a carbon transfer of the information filled in on the summons issued to the defendant, and that the signature of the arresting officer is also a carbon transfer of the signature of the arresting officer on the summons. The only part of the complaint that contains original notations is the verification by zone sergeant E. J. Maywalt on September 30, 1966. The Court notes that the verification states 'Sworn to and subscribed before me.' It is obvious that the complaint was not subscribed before the zone sergeant taking the acknowledgment,[51 Misc.2d 899] unless the zone sergeant had accompanied the arresting officer when issuing the original summons to the defendant. The arresting officer when he gave the original summons to the defendant obviously signed that summons at the time that it was issued. Since his signature on the complaint is a carbon transfer of his signature on the summons, the complaint was not subscribed to before the zone sergeant taking the acknowledgment. Assuming the unlikely fact that the zone sergeant accompanied the arresting officer when he issued the summons to the defendant, the Court is still concerned with the signature of the arresting officer.

Section 147--e of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a simplified traffic information may be substantially in the form set forth in

Page 644

that section, or in a form prescribed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles pursuant to section 207 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The complaint obviously is not the same complaint set forth in section 147--e of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and must therefore, be intended to be a form prescribed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles pursuant to section 207 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. A review of the official compilations of codes, rules and regulations of the State of New York as contained in volume 15, shows that the Commissioner has prescribed specifications and procedure applicable to uniform traffic tickets. Section 91.11 (15 NYCRR 91.11(a)) of the Commissioner's regulations, subsection (a), provides 'When an alleged traffic violator is issued a uniform traffic ticket--revised, the police officer shall sign part I of the packet and deliver same to the alleged violator, and shall swear to and sign part II before a person authorized to administer the necessary oath, and shall deliver parts II, III and IV to the court in which the alleged violator is notified to appear.' The Commissioner's regulations clearly require the police officer to separately sign the summons, and separately sign the complaint before the person authorized to administer the necessary oath. In this case, it is obvious...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • People ex rel. Moochler v. D'Agostino
    • United States
    • New York Court of Special Sessions
    • December 2, 1966
    ...attached to the complaint which is obviously based on information and belief. The Court has held in People ex rel. Williams v. Crouch, 51 Misc.2d 898, 274 N.Y.S.2d 642, that a complaint issued by the pick-up man of a radar team who obtains [52 Misc.2d 450] his information from the radar ope......
1 cases
  • People ex rel. Moochler v. D'Agostino
    • United States
    • New York Court of Special Sessions
    • December 2, 1966
    ...attached to the complaint which is obviously based on information and belief. The Court has held in People ex rel. Williams v. Crouch, 51 Misc.2d 898, 274 N.Y.S.2d 642, that a complaint issued by the pick-up man of a radar team who obtains [52 Misc.2d 450] his information from the radar ope......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT