People v. Furst

• Decision Date: 19 September 2003
• Citation: 765 N.Y.S.2d 753,1 Misc.3d 654
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff,<BR>v.<BR>THEODORE FURST, Defendant.
• Court: New York District Court

1 Misc.3d 654
765 N.Y.S.2d 753

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff,
v.
THEODORE FURST, Defendant.

September 19, 2003.

Milton M. Kreppel, New Rochelle, for defendant.

Edward P. Dunphy, Corporation Counsel, White Plains (Joseph W. Henneberry of counsel), for plaintiff.

OPINION OF THE COURT

BRIAN HANSBURY, J.

Facts

On June 6, 2003, the defendant was charged by simplified traffic information with driving in excess of the maximum speed

[1 Misc.3d 655]

limit, a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (d). On June 20, 2003, the appearance date indicated on the simplified traffic information, the defendant and his attorney appeared at the traffic clerk's office, pleaded not guilty by so indicating on part B of the traffic ticket, requested a supporting deposition, filed a notice of appearance, and left without appearing before a judge for arraignment. On June 27, 2003, a lieutenant in the White Plains Police Department served a supporting deposition directly upon the defendant by mailing the same to the defendant's residence.

Arguments

The defendant moves pursuant to CPL 170.30 (1) (a) for dismissal upon the ground that failure to serve the supporting deposition on the defendant's attorney renders the simplified traffic information insufficient on its face. In support of this contention, the defendant cites People v Rossi (154 Misc 2d 616 [Just Ct, Nassau County 1992]).

In opposition to the motion, the prosecution argues that an administrative error committed by the court clerk, which resulted in the failure to notify the police department that the defendant was represented by an attorney, should not result in the dismissal of the simplified traffic information, especially where, as here, the defendant received a timely supporting deposition and has failed to demonstrate any prejudice. Citing the case of People v Schlosser (129 Misc 2d 690 [Nassau Dist Ct 1985]), it is further argued that the court should impose upon defense counsel a requirement that a separate request for a supporting deposition be served on the prosecution.

The prosecution also relies upon People v Mensch (NYLJ, Mar. 18, 2002, at 28, col 2 [White Plains City Ct, Friia, J.]), wherein the court denied a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL 170.30 (1) (a) holding that the defendant's failure to comply with the plea-by-mail provision of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1806 deprived the court of jurisdiction to entertain the application.

In his reply papers, the defendant argues that the Mensch...