People v. Clark

• Citation: 537 N.Y.S.2d 723,142 Misc.2d 544
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Doris I. CLARK, Defendant.
• Decision Date: 12 September 1988
• Court: New York Justice Court

Page 723

537 N.Y.S.2d 723

142 Misc.2d 544

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Doris I. CLARK, Defendant.

Justice Court, Town of Arcadia,

Wayne County.

Sept. 12, 1988.

Stephen R. Sirkin, Dist. Atty., Richard M. Healy, Asst. Dist. Atty., for people.

Robert A. DiNieri, Clyde, for defendant.

FRANKLIN T. RUSSELL, Town Justice.

Defendant, Doris I. Clark, is accused upon a Simplified Traffic Information of a violation of Section 1174(a) of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law, the alleged violation occurring on June 2, 1988, in the Town of Arcadia, County of Wayne.

At the outset of the trial, counsel for Defendant served a Notice of Motion upon the Court, a copy having previously been served upon the People, seeking to dismiss the Simplified Traffic Information in that no supporting deposition was served upon counsel for Defendant as required by CPL § 100.25. The Court reserved decision upon the motion, which the Court will now address.

The facts are undisputed that Defendant appeared in the Town of Arcadia Court on June 16, 1988, pursuant to the aforementioned Simplified Traffic Information. At the time of Defendant's appearance, Defendant, amongst other things, was advised of her right to counsel and to have a supporting deposition. Defendant declined both and advised the Court that she was not guilty of the offense charged. Thereupon, the Court adjourned the matter for three weeks in order to give Defendant the opportunity to reflect upon her rights. On its own initiative, the Court requested a supporting deposition in order to determine if reasonable cause existed to proceed with a trial (the Court recognizing the age of the Defendant and being concerned that she had elected not to be represented by counsel).

When Defendant returned on the adjourned date, July 7, 1988, Defendant indicated no change in what had transpired before the Court at her previous appearance and a trial date was established. By letter dated July 27, 1988, to the Court from Defendant's counsel, and by a telephone conversation between Defendant's counsel and the Court about that same date, Defendant's counsel requested an adjournment of the trial as he would be unavailable on the August 8th date. Neither in counsel's letter, nor during the telephone conversation, did counsel request the supporting deposition and it was not until the day before the hearing that counsel contacted the court clerk and requested the supporting deposition be read to him over the telephone.

It is the position of Defendant's counsel that there is an obligation to serve the supporting deposition upon the defendant or defendant's counsel when a supporting deposition is requested by the Court, pursuant to CPL § 100.25. I disagree. In part, CPL § 100.25(2) sets forth:

"A defendant ... is, upon a timely request, entitled as a matter of right to have filed with the court and served upon him, or if he is represented by an attorney, upon his attorney, a supporting deposition ... providing reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense or offenses charged. Such a request must be made before entry of a plea of guilty to the charge specified and before commencement of a trial thereon, but not later than thirty days after (a) entry of the defendant's plea of not guilty when he has been arraigned in person.... Upon such a request, the court must order the complainant police officer or public servant to serve a copy of such supporting deposition upon the defendant or his attorney, within thirty days of the date such request is received by the court or at least five days before trial, whichever is earlier...." (emphasis added)

At no time within the thirty day period following defendant's arraignment on June 16, 1988, did defendant or her counsel ever request a supporting deposition. Subdivision 2 of CPL § 100.25 is clear that defendant and/or her counsel is entitled as a matter of right to a supporting deposition upon a timely request. In support of defendant's position, defendant cites People v. Key, 45 N.Y.2d 111, 408 N.Y.S.2d 16, 379 N.E.2d 1147. Reliance upon People v. Key, in this instance, is erroneous. That case addressed, amongst other things, the issue of whether a supporting deposition provided reasonable cause to believe defendant committed the offense charged. Further, the case held that "the People's tender of...