People v. Crisci
| Decision Date | 16 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 2010NA029443.,2010NA029443. |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Carmen CRISCI, Defendant. |
| Court | New York District Court |
The PEOPLE of the State of New York,
v.
Carmen CRISCI, Defendant.
No. 2010NA029443.
District Court, Nassau County, New York,
First District.
March 16, 2012.
Kathleen Rice; NC District Attorney, Dominic Errichiello, Esq; attorney for defendant.
ANDREW M. ENGEL, J.
+----------------------------+
¦Papers Submitted: ¦ ¦
+--------------------------+-¦
¦Notice of Motion ¦1¦
+--------------------------+-¦
¦Affirmation in Support ¦2¦
+--------------------------+-¦
¦Notice of Motion ¦3¦
+--------------------------+-¦
¦Affirmation in Support ¦4¦
+--------------------------+-¦
¦Affirmation in Opposition ¦5¦
+----------------------------+
The Defendant is charged, by District Court Information, with Leaving the Scene of an Accident Involving Personal Injury, and by Simplified Traffic Information, with Driving While Intoxicated Per Se, Operating an Uninsured Motor Vehicle, Operating an Unregistered Motor Vehicle, Operating a Motor Vehicle With Improper Plates and Operating an Uninspected Motor Vehicle, all in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 600(2), 1192(2), 319(1), 401(1)(a), 402(4) and 306(b), respectively.
The Defendant now moves to dismiss the accusatory insturments, alleging that they are facially insufficient. If this branch of his motion should be denied, the Defendant seeks an order precluding the introduction of testimony concerning observations of the Defendant as being unduly suggestive and to suppress any in-court identification of the Defendant. The Defendant also seeks an order suppressing statements he may have made to public servants or their agent, or, alternatively directing that a hearing be held in relation thereto. The Defendant additionally seeks an order directing that a Dunaway/Mapp1 hearing be held; that the People comply with the Defendant's Discovery Demand by a certain date or be precluded from introducing any evidence not so provided; directing the People to disclose the Defendant's past criminal history and/or prior bad or immoral acts which the People intend to use at trial, should the Defendant chose to testify, and a pre-trial hearing pursuant to People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 (1974); directing the People to provide the Defendant with all favorable evidence; and, should this matter go to trial, directing the People to provide the Defendant with all material pursuant to People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881 (1961).
The People consent to a hearing pursuant to People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 22, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838 (1965), exclusive of the issue of probable cause for the Defendant's arrest, and oppose the remainder of the Defendant's motion in its entirety. For reasons they do not explain, and cannot be discerned by the court, the People also include their own demand for discovery in their opposition papers. Contrary to the People's assertion, such a demand is not “in accordance with the provisions of Section 240.30 of the Criminal Procedure Law[.]” ( Schlissel Affirmation 11/1/2011, ¶ 62)
The District Court Information charging the Defendant with Leaving the Scene of an Accident Involving Personal Injury will be found facially sufficient if it contains an accusatory part, designating the offense charged, CPL § 100.15(2), setting forth every element thereof, People v. Hall, 48 N.Y.2d 927, 425 N.Y.S.2d 56, 401 N.E.2d 179 (1979), and a factual part containing “a statement of the complainant alleging facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charges[,]” CPL § 100.15(3) based upon either the complainant's personal knowledge or upon information and belief. CPL § 100.15(3) The factual part, taken together with any supporting depositions [CPL § 100.20], must “provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense,” People v. Alejandro, 70 N.Y.2d 133, 517 N.Y.S.2d 927, 511 N.E.2d 71 (1987); CPL § 100.40(1)(b) and contain non-hearsay allegations which, if true, establish every element of the offense charged, CPL § 100.15(3); CPL § 100.40(1)(c)People v. Moore, 5 N.Y.3d 725, 800 N.Y.S.2d 49, 833 N.E.2d 192 (2005); People v. Thomas, 4 N.Y.3d 143, 791 N.Y.S.2d 68, 824 N.E.2d 499 (2005); People v. Bottari, 31 Misc.3d 90, 924 N.Y.S.2d 733 (9th & 10th Jud. Dists.2011)
The Defendant argues that there are no allegations in the accusatory instrument or supporting depositions alleging that the complaining witness suffered any injuries; nor, is there an allegation of a medical diagnosis. The Defendant further argues that “there is no indication or allegation that the defendant knew or had reason to know that the alleged victim in the motor vehicle accident suffered any physical injury.” ( Errichiello Affirmation 7/18/11, ¶ 47)
In opposition, the People allege that the supporting deposition of Christine Palmigiano identifies the Defendant as the operator of a vehicle involved in a motor vehicle accident and attests that the Defendant left the scene without checking on the other individuals involved in the accident. The People further allege that a passenger in the vehicle involved in the accident with the Defendant “complained of pain and was transported by ambulance.” ( Schlissel Affirmation 11/1/2011, ¶ 22)
VTL § 600.2(a) provides, in pertinent part:
Any person operating a motor vehicle who, knowing or having cause to know that personal injury has been caused to another person, due to an incident involving the motor vehicle operated by such person shall, before leaving the place where the said personal injury occurred, stop, exhibit his or her license and insurance identification card for such vehicle, ..., and give his or her name, residence, including street and street number, insurance carrier and insurance identification information including but not limited to the number and effective dates of said individual's insurance policy and license number, to the injured party, if practical, and also to a police officer, or in the event that no police officer is in the vicinity of the place of said injury, then, he or she shall report said incident as soon as physically able to the nearest police station or judicial officer.
As can be seen therefrom, a facially sufficient Information charging a violation of this Section will properly allege, in evidentiary form, the following elements: (1) the Defendant operated a motor vehicle; (2) the vehicle being operated by the Defendant was involved in an incident; (3) the Defendant knew or had cause to known that the incident caused personal injury to another; and, (4) the Defendant left the scene where the personal injury occurred without stopping, exhibiting his license and insurance card, and without providing his name, residence address, insurance information and license number to the injured person and police in the vicinity, or if none in the vicinity, without reporting the incident to the nearest police station or judicial officer as soon as he was physically able.In assessing the facial sufficiency of the District Court Information herein, the factual allegations contained therein, as well as in any accompanying supporting depositions, must be viewed in a light most favorable to the People, People v. Martinez, 16 Misc.3d 1111(A), 847 N.Y.S.2d 898, (Dist.Ct. Nassau Co.2007); People v. Delmonaco, 16 Misc.3d 526, 837 N.Y.S.2d 869 (Dist.Ct. Nassau Co.2007); People v. Mendelson, 15 Misc.3d 925, 834 N.Y.S.2d 445 (Dist.Ct. Nassau Co.2007) and may not be given an overly restrictive or technical reading, People v. Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 354, 717 N.Y.S.2d 88, 740 N.E.2d 233 (2000); People v. Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc., 6 N.Y.3d 404, 813 N.Y.S.2d 27, 846 N.E.2d 457 (2006). The sufficiency of the Information, however, must be determined from “within the four corners of the instrument itself' or in annexed supporting depositions [,]” People v. Thomas, 4 N.Y.3d 143, 791 N.Y.S.2d 68, 824 N.E.2d 499 (2005); See also: People v. Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 354, 717 N.Y.S.2d 88, 740 N.E.2d 233 (2000); People v. Bottari, 31 Misc.3d 90, 924 N.Y.S.2d 733 (9th & 10th Jud. Dists.2011), not from additional factual representations made by counsel which are not properly supported by the pleadings themselves.
With the aforesaid limitations in mind, if true, the non-hearsay allegations of the supporting depositions of Christine Palmigiano demonstrate that on November 13, 2010, at approximately 11:30 p.m., she was driving on Sunrise Highway, in Merrick, when she observed a 2005 Ford Crown Victoria, plate number EXH 7248, slow down to enter the left turning lane when it was struck from behind by a 1994 Ford motor vehicle, plate number FAV 3919, being operated by the Defendant, at a high rate of speed. Ms. Palmigiano approached the Defendant's vehicle and tried to pull open the vehicle's passenger's door, which was stuck. She then asked the Defendant and his passenger if they were alright, to which the Defendant responded that they were fine. Ms. Palmigiano then advised the Defendant that she would call an ambulance, and the Defendant yelled, “don't call an ambulance we are fine.” ( Palmigiano Supporting Deposition, 11/14/10) At that time, Ms. Palmigiano observed the Defendant exit his vehicle, pull open the passenger's door and say to his passenger, “Babe let's go.” ( Palmigiano Supporting Deposition, 11/14/10) Ms. Palmigiano asked the Defendant if he was drunk; and, the Defendant answered, “Yeah, I'm fucked up, I gotta get outta here. Babe let's go.” ( Palmigiano Supporting Deposition, 11/14/10) The Defendant was observed dragging his passenger from his vehicle and they fled across Sunrise Highway and onto Hewlett Avenue. Thereafter, after being informed by the police that a male and female had been stopped a short distance from the scene of the accident, Ms. Palmigiano was transported to that location by a Police Officer Ferrari, where she immediately recognized the two individuals and identified the Defendant the driver of the vehicle which...
To continue reading
Request your trial