People v. Howell

• Decision Date: 12 August 1993
• Citation: 158 Misc.2d 653,601 N.Y.S.2d 778
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Howard HOWELL, Defendant.
• Court: New York City Court

Page 778

601 N.Y.S.2d 778

158 Misc.2d 653

The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Howard HOWELL, Defendant.

Criminal Court of the City of New York,

Kings County, AP 4.

Aug. 12, 1993.

Robert Baum, Legal Aid Soc., New York City by Karen Smolar, Brooklyn, for defendant.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty. by Robert Gershon, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the People.

JO ANN FERDINAND, Judge.

Defendant is charged in a simplified traffic information with Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle in the Third Degree in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511(1)(a), a traffic infraction.

Defendant moves to dismiss the accusatory instrument on the ground that the supporting deposition does not sufficiently corroborate the simplified traffic information. ¹

A charge of V.T.L. § 511(1)(a) can be commenced by a simplified traffic information which, as defined in C.P.L. § 100.10(2)(a), "... is 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." Thereafter, upon request of a defendant, the People must serve, "a supporting deposition of the complainant police officer or public servant, containing allegations of fact, based either upon personal knowledge or upon information and belief, providing reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense or offenses charged." [C.P.L. § 100.25(2) ]

A person is guilty of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree under V.T.L. § 511(1)(a),

... when such person operates a motor vehicle upon a public highway while knowing or having reason to know that such person's license or privilege of operating such motor vehicle in this state or privilege of obtaining a license to operate such motor vehicle issued by the commissioner is suspended, revoked or otherwise withdrawn by the commissioner.

In the case at hand, the simplified traffic information charging the defendant with driving with a suspended license consisted of a universal summons. The universal summons has been designated by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles in accordance with C.P.L. § 100.10(2)(a) as the appropriate accusatory instrument to be used for charges constituting traffic infractions.

In addition to the universal summons, the People filed a form supporting deposition which consists of an introductory portion for the date, time and place of the arrest and three paragraphs entitled: Observation, Suspension and Knowledge. Under the "Observation" section, the complainant police officer filled in the year, make and license plate number of the defendant's car in conjunction with the pre-written statement that the defendant was observed operating a motor vehicle on a public highway.

Under the "Suspension" section, the complainant police officer checked off the box indicating that the defendant's license has been suspended, as opposed to revoked, based on a computer check of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. The pre-written portion of this section also states that a copy of the teletype printout is enclosed with the deposition. The People failed, however, to attach a copy of the teletype printout.

Under the "Knowledge" section, the pre-written portion states that the defendant was unable to produce a valid license and that the Department of Motor Vehicles routinely sends notification of suspensions or revocations to a motorist at the most current address supplied. In addition, the complainant police officer checked off the box which states that "the computer check revealed that defendant's license was suspended for failure to answer a traffic summons, and all such summonses have printed on them 'if you do not answer this ticket by mail within fifteen (15) days, your license will be suspended.' The suspension occurs automatically (by computer) within 4 weeks of the defendant's failure to answer."

Defendant argues that in the absence of the teletype printout of the defendant's suspensions, the supporting deposition fails to properly corroborate the simplified traffic information, in that it fails to provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged.

For a misdemeanor information to be facially sufficient, it must conform to the requirements of C.P.L. §§ 100.15 and 100.40. The factual portion must allege facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charges. C.P.L. § 100.15(3). Further, the allegations of the factual part must provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offenses charged. C.P.L. § 100.40(1)(b). Lastly, non-hearsay allegations must establish, if true, every element of each offense charged as well as defendant's commission thereof. C.P.L. § 100.40(1)(c).

The requirements for commencing a prosecution of a traffic infraction by filing a simplified traffic information are less than those associated with a misdemeanor information. To begin with, by definition, a simplified traffic information is not required to contain factual allegations. C.P.L. § 100.10(2)(a). Furthermore, even if a supporting deposition is requested by the defendant, the factual allegations therein need only provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged. Most significant, however, is the fact...