People v. DeLuca
| Citation | 633 N.Y.S.2d 249,166 Misc.2d 313 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Peter DeLUCA, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 15 August 1995 |
| Court | New York City Court |
Alfred R. Mosiello, Bronx, for defendant.
The defendant has orally moved this Court for an order dismissing the above-captioned simplified traffic informations.
On January 4, 1995, defendant was charged by simplified traffic information with the following violations of the vehicle and traffic law: a) Exceeding the Maximum Speed Limit (VTL § 1180(d)); b) Following Too Closely (VTL § 1129(a)). Approximately one month later, on February 8, 1995, defendant, by counsel, sent a letter to this Court wherein he sought to enter a plea of "not guilty" to the charges. Defendant also requested a supporting deposition in said letter.
In response, the Clerk of the Court sent defendant a form letter advising him that a "plea of not guilty" by mail is permissible only under "stipulated conditions" prescribed by statute, and that "since [he] failed to meet the requirements, [he] must now appear in the City Court of Yonkers on March 7, 1995 at 9:30 A.M. On March 7, 1995, defendant appeared in Court and, formally entered a not guilty plea to the charges. The record reflects that he did not request a supporting deposition at that time. The matter was adjourned until May 15, 1995 for trial. On May 15, 1995, defendant appeared and made the instant oral motion to dismiss the simplified traffic informations, alleging that dismissal was warranted because he had not been served with a supporting deposition, although he had requested the same in the letter of February 8, 1995.
It is undisputed that CPL § 100.25(2) provides that a defendant who been arraigned upon a simplified traffic information is, upon a timely request, entitled, as a matter of right, to have filed with the Court and served upon him/her, a supporting deposition of the complainant police officer or public servant. The statute also provides that:
"Such a request must be made before entry of plea of not guilty to the charge specified and before commencement of a trial thereon, but not later than thirty (30) days after a) entry of the defendant's plea of not guilty when he has been arraigned in person, or b) written notice to the defendant of his right to receive a supporting deposition when he has submitted a plea of not guilty by mail. CPL § 100.25(2)." (emphasis added)
The statute further provides that within thirty (30) days of the date that such request is received by the court, or at least five (5) days before trial, whichever is earlier, the complainant officer or public servant must file such supporting deposition with the court together with proof of service thereof. Furthermore, the Courts of this State have held that failure to provide a supporting deposition within the statutory time frame renders the simplified traffic information jurisdictionally defective, warranting its dismissal. See, People v. Nuccio, 78 N.Y.2d 102, 571 N.Y.S.2d 693, 575 N.E.2d 111. CPL § 100.25(2), 100.40.
Thus, the central question before this Court is whether defendant's request for a supporting deposition in his letter of February 8, 1995, prior to his arraignment on March 7, 1995, triggered the running of the thirty (30) day period for the serving and filing of said supporting deposition. To answer this question, the Court must read CPL § 100.25 in conjunction with CPL § 170.10 and VTL § 1806.
As noted above, CPL § 100.25(2) specifies that the thirty (30) day time-period for a defendant to request a supporting deposition does not begin to run until defendant has been arraigned on the simplified traffic information. CPL § 170.10, mandates that generally a defendant must personally appear at his/her arraignment, except in certain limited situations. One such exception is where a traffic infraction is charged. CPL § 170.10(1)(a). This exception is based upon VTL § 1806 which provides for a waiver of arraignment on a traffic infraction and allows a defendant to enter a "plea of not guilty" by mailing to the Court a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Utsett
...and CPL 170.30[1][a]; People v. Curtis, 166 Misc 2d 753, 634 N.Y.S.2d 981, 981—82 (Perinton Just. Ct. 1995); People v. DeLuca, 166 Misc 2d 313, 633 N.Y.S.2d 249, 251 (Yonkers City Ct. 1995); People v. Malone, 166 Misc 2d 54, 631 N.Y.S.2d 223, 223—24 (Suffolk Co. Dist. Ct. 1995); People v. S......
-
People v. Utsett
...and CPL 170.30[1][a] ; People v. Curtis, 166 Misc.2d 753, 634 N.Y.S.2d 981, 981–82 (Perinton Just.Ct.1995) ; People v. DeLuca, 166 Misc.2d 313, 633 N.Y.S.2d 249, 251 (Yonkers City Ct.1995) ; People v. Malone, 166 Misc.2d 54, 631 N.Y.S.2d 223, 223–24 (Suffolk Co.Dist.Ct.1995) ; People v. Spe......
-
People v. Scherbner
...100.40 [2]; People v. Perry, 87 NY2d 353, 355-356 [1996]; People v Aucello, 146 Misc 2d 417 [App Term, 2d Dept 1990]; People v DeLuca, 166 Misc 2d 313, 316 [1995]; cf. People v Furst, 1 Misc 3d 654 [2003].) However, the People have raised an issue as to whether the request for such a suppor......
-
People v. Furst
...shall be required to appear in person before a judge for arraignment on the simplified traffic information (see People v DeLuca, 166 Misc 2d 313 [Yonkers City Ct [*] A "simplified information" means a "simplified traffic information" (CPL 1.20 [5] [a])....