People v. Curtis

• Decision Date: 31 October 1995
• Citation: 166 Misc.2d 753,634 N.Y.S.2d 981
• Parties: The PEOPLE of New York, Plaintiff, v. Matthew CURTIS, Defendant.
• Court: New York Justice Court

Page 981

634 N.Y.S.2d 981

166 Misc.2d 753

The PEOPLE of New York, Plaintiff, v. Matthew CURTIS, Defendant.

Justice Court, Town of Perinton Monroe County.

Oct. 31, 1995.

Howard R. Relin, District Attorney (Brett Granville, of counsel), Rochester, for the People.

Edward L. Findach (Michael Scibetta, of counsel), Rochester, for Defendant.

RONALD J. BUTTARAZZI, Justice.

On April 5, 1995, the Sheriff's Office of Monroe County investigated an accident involving personal injuries and property damage. On April 6, 1995, a long form information was filed against the defendant for a violation of Section 1192(3) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, the common law charge of driving while intoxicated. Thereafter on May 29, 1995, a second charge was brought against the defendant by the filing of a simplified traffic information charging defendant with over .10% blood alcohol content in violation of Section 1192(2) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. On July 5, 1995 the court received a motion demanding among other things that the simplified traffic information be dismissed and demanding that a long form information be filed on the second charge, and further demanding that the simplified traffic information be dismissed because of the alleged insufficiency of a laboratory report as a purported supporting deposition.

The court records do not contain a copy of an alleged laboratory report, nor a copy of any purported supporting deposition, nor that there was ever a timely demand for a supporting deposition pursuant to CPL Section 100.25(2). Although defendant has an absolute right for a supporting deposition that right to a supporting deposition has been held waived when a timely demand for the deposition has not been made (People v. Rossi, 154 Misc.2d 616, 587 N.Y.S.2d 511). An argument was presented that a certain laboratory report submitted to the defendant by the prosecution was insufficient as a supporting deposition. There is nothing in the record to establish that the laboratory report or reports given to the defendant were ever intended and forwarded to defendant as a supporting deposition, nor given in response to a demand for a supporting deposition. Since it has not been established that the laboratory report or reports were ever intended to be a supporting deposition, their insufficiency is not properly before the court.

Defendant further raises the issue as to whether the court has jurisdiction where a criminal charge is filed by means of a simplified traffic information which is sufficient under CPL 100.10(2)(a) but is clearly insufficient under the learning of People v. Alejandro, 70 N.Y.2d 133, 517 N.Y.S.2d 927, 511 N.E.2d 71. Defendant relies upon People v. Smith, 163 Misc.2d 353, 621 N.Y.S.2d 449 (Justice Court 1994) in which the court ruled that the supporting deposition was insufficient where it did not meet the standards established in (People v. Alejandro, 70 N.Y.2d 133, 517 N.Y.S.2d 927, 511 N.E.2d 71. In People v. Alejandro, 70 N.Y.2d 133, 137, 517 N.Y.S.2d 927, 511 N.E.2d 71) the Court of Appeals ruled:

"... that in order for an information or count thereof to be sufficient on its face, every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof must be supported by non-hearsay allegations of such information and/or any supporting depositions." (Emphasis added)

Defendant plausibly argues that the charge against him must be brought by means of an information because "... it defies logic ... and fairness ..." that a simplified information be treated differently than an information and/or misdemeanor complaint resulting in "... defendants ... not being equally protected by law." (People v. Smith, 163 Misc.2d 353, 362, 621 N.Y.S.2d 449, 455).

This court holds that the rule of People v. Alejandro, supra, does not require that a simplified traffic information be dismissed for failure to meet the standards of a long form information. In People v. Boback, 23 N.Y.2d 189, 195, 295 N.Y.S.2d 912, 243 N.E.2d...