People v. Clark

• Decision Date: 26 February 1969
• Citation: 59 Misc.2d 714,299 N.Y.S.2d 901
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. James D. CLARK, Defendant.
• Court: New York District Court

Page 901

299 N.Y.S.2d 901

59 Misc.2d 714

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. James D. CLARK, Defendant.

District Court, Suffolk County, Fifth District.

Feb. 26, 1969.

George J. Aspland, Riverhead, for the People.

James D. Clark, pro se.

DECISION ON TRIAL

JOHN V. VAUGHN, Judge.

The defendant James Clark was issued a Uniform Traffic Ticket on September 23, 1968 which was made returnable before the Fifth District Court at Bay Shore, N.Y., on November 22, 1968.

On the return date the defendant appeared at the time and place named in the Uniform Traffic Ticket and entered a plea of not guilty to a violation of Article 21, Section 512, subd. 1(a) of the Tax Law of the State of New York.

The information before the Court on November 22, 1968 consisted of a Simplified Uniform Traffic Information which had been verified on September 26, 1968 pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure in that it was sworn to before a Sergeant of Police of the Suffolk County Police Department.

The matter came on for trial on February 26, 1969 and the Peoples case was presented through the testimony of Patrolman Robert Agenjo of the Suffolk County Police Department.

The police officer testified that he observed the defendant operating a 1957 International Dump truck on Sunrise Highway and Howells Road in the Town of Islip, Suffolk County, New York, on September 23, 1968 at about 9:15 a.m., and that defendant was issued a Uniform Traffic Ticket for a violation of Article 21, Section 512, subd. 1(a) of the Tax Law for failing to have a Highway Use permit or plate.

After the Peoples case the Court on its own motion reserved decision on its motion to dismiss, in that the Court lacked jurisdiction.

The question before the Court is: Can a Simplified Uniform Traffic Summons and Complaint be used for the prosecution of a violation of the Tax Law or any other violation of law unrelated to Traffic.

It is the Court's opinion that the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles is without authority to prescribe a form of traffic complaint for use in cases of violations of law unrelated to traffic.

Section 147--a of the Code of Criminal Procedure construes a simplified traffic information as the information or complaint 'charging the difendant with a violation of any of the provisions of the vehicle and traffic law, or of any order, ordinance, rule or regulation made by local or public authorities In relation to traffic.' (Italics supplied)

Section 147--d of the Code, requiring a statement of the violation, is illustrative of the nature of the offense which may be prosecuted by a simplified traffic information. This section speaks of violations such as 'speeding, reckless driving, or the like, or if it be a violation having no general name, such as disobeying a traffic control device, failing to yield the right of way, or the like, a brief description of it as given by statute, order, ordinance, rule or regulation.'

Looking also to Section 2002 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law for some guidance as to what is meant by 'any order, ordinance, rule or regulation made by local or public authorities in relation to traffic' as intended by C.C.P. Sec. 147--a, it would appear that these have reference to orders of the state traffic commission, rules and regulations of the state traffic commission, rules and regulations of the sanitary and administrative codes and local laws and ordinances enacted by municipalities, relative to traffic, and which are construed by V & T Sec. 2002 as if they had been adopted pursuant to the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Statutes enacted by the New York State Legislature outside of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, are not included.

Section 207, subdivision 1, of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, speaks of the Commissioner's authority to prescribe the form of summons and complaint 'in all cases involving a violation...