People v. Coore

• Decision Date: 28 January 1991
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Baldwin COORE, Defendant.
• Court: New York City Court

Page 992

566 N.Y.S.2d 992

149 Misc.2d 864

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Baldwin COORE, Defendant.

City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County.

Jan. 28, 1991.

Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty. of Westchester County, (Perry P. Perrone, of counsel), for the people.

Ury Abraham Leid, of counsel, of the law firm of Rodriquez and Leid, P.C., for defendant.

GILBERT RABIN, Judge.

Defendant has been charged by simplified traffic informations with violating the following sections of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law: 1) Section 1102 (failure to comply); 2) Section 1192(3) (driving while intoxicated); 3) Section 1128(a) (unsafe lane change); and 4) Section 1180(d) (speeding).

At the time of his arrest on October 6, 1990, defendant was given an appearance ticket instructing him to appear in the Mt. Vernon City Court on October 16, 1990. Defendant appeared twice in that court before learning that his case had, in fact, been commenced in the Yonkers City Court by the filing of the subject accusatory instruments. Thereafter, on October 30, 1990, defendant appeared in the Yonkers City Court whereupon he was served with the aforementioned simplified traffic informations and a supporting deposition.

Defendant now moves to dismiss all of the charges on the grounds that the filing of the accusatory instruments in Yonkers City Court violates CPL § 150.50(1), which section requires a police officer who has issued an appearance ticket to file the appropriate accusatory instrument "with the criminal court in which it [the appearance ticket] is returnable". (Emphasis added) Defendant contends that pursuant to CPL § 150.50(1), the subject charges should have been filed in the Mt. Vernon City Court which is the court where the appearance ticket was made returnable. Defendant has also raised an issue as to the geographical jurisdiction of the Yonkers City Court over this matter.

An appearance ticket is merely an invitation to appear; it does not confer jurisdiction. People v. Byfield, 131 Misc.2d 884, 885, 502 N.Y.S.2d 346. It is the filing of the accusatory instrument which gives the court jurisdiction. Id. Thus, CPL § 150.50(1) requires the filing of the appropriate accusatory instrument in the local criminal court in which the appearance ticket is returnable at or before the return date. This section, however, cannot be construed in isolation. Clearly, CPL § 150.50(1) presupposes compliance with CPL § 150.40, (1) which requires an appearance ticket to be made returnable in a local court where an information for the offense in question may be filed. The appropriate court for the filing of the information is the City Court of the particular city where the offense was allegedly "committed in" (CPL § 100.55(3)), which means any court that has geographical jurisdiction over the offense pursuant to CPL § 20.50. (CPL § 100.55(10)).

The People must prove geographical jurisdiction at trial. People v. Burgess, 107 A.D.2d 703, 484 N.Y.S.2d 58. As applied to this case, this would mean that the People must prove that the alleged offenses occurred in the City of Yonkers or within 100 yards thereof. CPL § 20.50. A challenge to geographical jurisdiction may, however, be raised prior to trial, (Matter of Steingut v. Gold, 42 N.Y.2d 311, 316, 397 N.Y.S.2d 765, 366 N.E.2d 854), by filing of a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction. In the Matter of Wayne Machado v. Donalty, 107 A.D.2d 1079, 1080, 486 N.Y.S.2d 544.

The actual place where the alleged crime was committed, is generally a question of fact for the jury to decide. People v. Moore, 46 N.Y.2d 1, 6-7, 412 N.Y.S.2d 795, 385 N.E.2d 535. There appears to be no issue in this case as to the place where the offenses allegedly occurred. Defendant, however, has raised an issue as to the location of the boundary between Yonkers and Mt. Vernon, which is a proper question to be decided by the Court. Id. at 6, 412 N.Y.S.2d 795, 385 N.E.2d 535. Thus, since defendant has now raised the issue of geographical jurisdiction prior to trial, and where that issue also directly impacts on defendant's motion to dismiss under CPL § 150.50(1), the Court deems it appropriate, only for purposes of deciding defendant's motion, to determine at a hearing the jurisdiction in which the alleged offenses occurred.

If, after the hearing, the Court finds that the Mount Vernon City Court is the only Court that has geographical jurisdiction over the said charges, then the charges against defendant in this Court must be dismissed. If, however, this Court determines that only Yonkers has geographical jurisdiction or that both Yonkers and Mount Vernon have geographical jurisdiction, then the filing of said charges in Yonkers was proper. The fact that the appearance ticket directed defendant to appear in the City Court of Mt. Vernon is not a jurisdictional defect warranting dismissal of the charges. As previously stated, an appearance ticket is merely an invitation to...