People v. Ferro
| Decision Date | 24 November 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2007-1576 S CR,2007-1576 S CR |
| Citation | 22 Misc.3d 7,2008 NY Slip Op 28467,871 N.Y.S.2d 814 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. NICOLE M. FERRO, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term |
Orders reversed on the law, defendant's motions to dismiss denied, simplified traffic informations reinstated and matters remanded to the court below for all further proceedings.
In our opinion, the District Court erred in concluding that the instruments filed in that court could not be deemed "accusatory" instruments, i.e., valid simplified traffic informations. The accusatory instruments were each denominated "Information/Simplified Information." The failure of the complainant officer to specify whether the instruments were either simplified informations or informations is not fatal to the court's jurisdiction (see People v Corn, NYLJ, Nov. 13, 1985, at 15 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; People v Vierno, 159 Misc 2d 770 [Crim Ct, Richmond County 1993]). The accusatory instruments complied with the form required by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles for simplified traffic informations with respect to approximate size and inclusion of spaces for the operator's name, address, date of birth, sex, license identification, vehicle description, registration information, violation description, and time and place of appearance, and the complainant's name and affiliation (Regulations of Commissioner of Motor Vehicles [15 NYCRR] part 91). Furthermore, while a simplified traffic information, by definition, does not contain any factual allegations of an evidentiary nature (CPL 100.10 [2] [a]), "[t]he inclusion of a factual section providing defendant somewhat more information than required by statute does not render an otherwise valid simplified traffic information invalid" (People v Fried, NYLJ, May 18, 1988, at 15 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; Vierno, 159 Misc 2d at 778). The subject accusatory instruments are sufficient simplified traffic informations since they designate the offenses charged, substantially conform to the form prescribed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and provide the court sufficient information to establish that it has jurisdiction to hear the case (People v Eshaghpour, 12 Misc 3d 134[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51193[U] [App...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kelly
...over its substance (citations omitted)." People v. Fernandez , 20 NY3d 44, 50, 956 N.Y.S.2d 443,447 (2012) See also : People v. Ferro, 22 Misc 3d 7, 871 N.Y.S.2d 814 (App. Term 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2008) Looking at the substance of the document the People have labeled a Prosecutor's Infor......
-
People v. Vogt
..., 65 Misc. 3d 151[A], 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 51875[U], 2019 WL 6335091 [App. Term, 2d Dept., 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2019] ; People v. Ferro , 22 Misc. 3d 7, 871 N.Y.S.2d 814 [App. Term, 2d Dept., 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2008] ). Additionally, pursuant to CPL 100.25 (2), if a supporting depositio......
-
People v. Kearns
...v. Atkinson, 42 Misc.3d 139 [A], 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 50169[U], 2014 WL 562566 [App.Term, 9th & 10th Jud.Dists.2014] ; People v. Ferro, 22 Misc.3d 7, 871 N.Y.S.2d 814 [App.Term, 9th & 10th Jud.Dists.2008] ), as the People so acknowledged in the District Court, when they admitted that, at his ......
-
People v. Smith
...[15 NYCRR] § 91; People v Anand, 65 Misc.3d 151 [A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51875[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2019]; People v Ferro, 22 Misc.3d 7 [App Term, 2d Dept, & 10th Jud Dists 2008]) and provides the court with sufficient information to establish that it has jurisdiction to ......