People v. Farley

Decision Date10 September 1985
Citation494 N.Y.S.2d 622,129 Misc.2d 925
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of New York v. Gary FARLEY, Defendant/Respondent.
CourtNew York District Court

JOHN A. CARROLL, Judge.

The defendant is charged with violating V & TL 511(2). He now moves to dismiss the accusatory instrument on the ground that it is insufficient as a matter of law (CPL §§ 170.30, 170.35, 100.40(1)).

In response to the motion the People contend that the accusatory instrument herein is a "simplified traffic information" rather than a regular information, and hence, its sufficiency is to be determined pursuant to CPL 100.40(2), rather than CPL § 100.40(1). In support of this position the People cite the recently decided case of People v. Lydon, et al. Hon. Ira P. Block, J.D.C. In that case the court made reference to a letter from the Senior Administrative Law Judge of the Department of Motor Vehicles to the Commissioner of the Police Department wherein it was stated that the commissioner had approved the form of the submitted "summons". Based upon this letter the court held that the commissioner had approved the instrument now before the court as a simplified traffic information. Upon careful review of the applicable statutory and case authority, this court is constrained to respectfully disagree, and holds that the instrument in question is a regular information which is subject to the sufficiency requirements of CPL 100.40(1).

CPL § 100.10(2)(a) defines a simplified traffic information as a

written accusation by a police officer ... filed with a local criminal court, which charges a person with the commission of one or more traffic infractions and/or misdemeanors relating to traffic, and which, being in a brief or simplified form prescribed by the commissioner of motor vehicles, designates the offense or offenses charged, but contains no factual allegations of an evidentiary nature supporting such charge or charges. (emphasis added).

In conjunction with the above quoted statute, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 207(1) provides the statutory authority for the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to prescribe the form of the summons and complaint in all cases involving violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Pursuant to this statutory authorization, the Commissioner duly promulgated the form of the uniform traffic ticket which is found in 15 NYCRR Part 91. Part II of the Uniform Traffic Ticket is declared to be the Simplified Traffic Information. Pursuant to 15 NYCRR § 91.7(b), the Simplified Traffic information is to be printed on salmon stock; is to be labeled as a Simplified Traffic Information, and in accordance with CPL 100.10(2)(a), shall not have a section for factual allegations. 15 NYCRR §§ 91.5 and 91.7 also provides that no variations from the format prescribed shall be permitted unless prior written approval is obtained from the commissioner.

The accusatory instrument now before the court bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Simplified Traffic Information found in the regulations. It is entitled a complaint/information; it is white; it is of a physically different shape; and it contains a section for factual allegations, which has been filled in. The apparent reason for the discrepancy is that the present instrument was initially prepared not pursuant to V & TL § 207, but rather so as to satisfy the requirements of V & TL §§ 225 and 226. Those statutes refer to the procedure to be followed with respect to Administrative Adjudication of Traffic Infractions. Section 226 specifically authorizes the Commissioner to prescribe the form of the summons and complaint for administrative adjudication of such infractions. Pursuant to this authority, the commissioner promulgated 15 NYCRR Part 122. The regulations provide no specific form of the summons, but provide that the packet is to be approximately 4 1/4 inches wide and 8 1/2 high, and is to contain certain identifying information. 15 NYCRR 122.3(h) provides that no ticket shall be used unless the type, color, form and layout are approved by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • People v. Vierno
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • December 3, 1993
    ...57 A.D.2d 931, 394 N.Y.S.2d 577 (2nd Dept.1977).4 To the extent that this opinion is contrary to the decision in People v. Farley, 129 Misc.2d 925, 494 N.Y.S.2d 622 (District Court, Suffolk County 1985), the court respectfully declines to follow that ruling. As indicated above, and in footn......
  • People v. Schuttinger
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • May 5, 1989
    ...see 15 NYCRR § 91.7(b), n. 3; People v. Hauptman, NYLJ, April 27, 1982, p. 13, col. 1 [App Tm 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; People v. Farley, 129 Misc.2d 925, 494 N.Y.S.2d 622). The operative language is "may be treated", for elsewhere the same Appellate Term has explicitly adopted a flexible appr......
  • People v. Blake
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • June 1, 1992
    ...in this case does not meet the prescribed form and is clearly not a simplified traffic information. See, People v. Farley, 129 Misc.2d 925, 494 N.Y.S.2d 622 (Dist.Ct.Suff.County 1985). C.P.L. Section 100.10 sets forth five types of accusatory instruments which can be used in a local crimina......
  • People v. Kouyate, AP-7
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • October 7, 1993
    ... ... Nor is this court presented with an accusatory instrument which substantially [159 Misc.2d 185] conforms to a simplified traffic information as that is defined in 15 NYCRR part 91. See People v. Farley, 129 Misc.2d 925, 494 N.Y.S.2d 622 (District Ct.Suffolk Co. [1985]; People v. Blake, supra ...         For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. 3 ... --------------- ... 1 This Abstract was appended to the 91N025070 docket ... 2 The DMV Abstract lists ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT