People v. Canty
| Decision Date | 02 May 2016 |
| Citation | 34 N.Y.S.3d 861,52 Misc.3d 420 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Thomas CANTY, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
52 Misc.3d 420
34 N.Y.S.3d 861
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
v.
Thomas CANTY, Defendant.
Justice Court, Town of Lockport, Niagara County.
May 2, 2016.
Muscato, DiMillo & Vona, L.L.P. (George V. C. Muscato, of counsel) for defendant.
Bradley D. Marble, Town Prosecutor, Lockport, for plaintiff.
LEONARD G. TILNEY JR., J.
The Defendant was issued a Simplified Traffic Information along with the Supporting Deposition for violation of Section 1128(a) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law on July 29, 2015 by Niagara County Sheriff Deputy Julie Kratz for an offense occurring on July 11, 2015. The Defendant,
after very many appearance of counsel, requested a non-jury trial which was initially scheduled for January 27, 2016. The initial trial date was scheduled far enough ahead to allow both counsel to fully investigate the underlying facts and to have witnesses available who were recovering from serious physical injuries. On January 27, 2016 the matter was again adjourned on consent of both counsel to April 27, 2016. At that time the People were not prepared for the trial because their key independent civilian witness, Augustin Guley, was not in attendance and two other parties were advised by the Town Prosecutor not to attend because of their injuries which still rendered them incapacitated. Accordingly, no trial could be had. The People requested an adjournment to serve Mr. Guley personally with a subpoena.
Defense counsel was also present along with his own witnesses and prepared to go to trial. He opposed the adjournment request of the People and moved for a dismissal for failure to prosecute and for C.P.L. 30.20 and 30.30 reasons.
FACTS
The Court had no testimonial facts before it but for purposes of this decision only notes that the Uniform Traffic Ticket did contain "S.P.I." which meant there was an accident with serious physical injuries. The Defendant was given a ticket for moving from one lane unsafely and presumably striking a motorcycle forcing the same into two other stopped vehicles resulting in serious physical injuries to the operator and passenger on the motorcycle.
A. JURISDICTION
The Court must always first find it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and that the accusatory instrument is sufficient on its face, which in this case is the underlying Simplified Traffic Information as augmented by the Supporting Deposition.
The Simplified Traffic Information must only comply with the requirements of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to be sufficient [ CPL § 1.20(5) and § 100.10(2)(a) ]. However, because of the sparseness of a Simplified Traffic Information, a Supporting Deposition generally is necessary to render the accusatory instrument legally sufficient, and thus give the Court adjudicatory jurisdiction over the defendant. People v. Beattie, 80 N.Y.2d 840, 841, 587 N.Y.S.2d 585, 600 N.E.2d 216 ; People v. Shapiro, 61 N.Y.2d 880, 474 N.Y.S.2d 470, 462 N.E.2d 1188 ; People v. Rossi, 154 Misc.2d 616, 618, 587 N.Y.S.2d 511. Hence, a Supporting Deposition must set forth enough evidentiary facts "in a plain and concise manner" to provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed all of the necessary elements of the offense charged, failing which it must be rejected and the case dismissed. People v. Schuttinger, 143 Misc.2d 1032, 1035, 542 N.Y.S.2d 927 ; People v. Cohen, 131 Misc.2d 898, 900, 502 N.Y.S.2d 123 ; People v. Hust, 74 Misc.2d 887, 890, 346 N.Y.S.2d 303. See also People v. Key, 87 Misc.2d 262, 267, 391 N.Y.S.2d 781 [App.term, 2nd Dept.], aff'd, 45 N.Y.2d 111, 408 N.Y.S.2d 16, 379 N.E.2d 1147.
But while CPL § 100.25 and § 100.40 provisions state the general rules, they do not provide the court with easily applicable guidance as to what amount and kind of evidentiary facts are sufficient to provide such reasonable cause, i.e., how detailed the supporting deposition must be. Rather, what constitutes a sufficient deposition will vary from case to case.
To continue reading
Request your trial