People v. Kachalsky, 2020-938 W CR

CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
Citation73 Misc.3d 138 (A),155 N.Y.S.3d 528 (Table)
Decision Date18 November 2021
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alan KACHALSKY, Appellant.
Docket Number2020-938 W CR

73 Misc.3d 138 (A)
155 N.Y.S.3d 528 (Table)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Alan KACHALSKY, Appellant.

2020-938 W CR

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York, Second Dept., 9 & 10 Jud. Dist.

Decided on November 18, 2021


Alan Kachalsky, appellant pro se.

Max DiFabio, for respondent (no brief filed).

PRESENT: TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, P.J., ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.

ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

In a simplified traffic information, defendant was charged with riding a motorcycle between lanes ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1252 [c] ). It provides that, on December 18, 2019 at 2 p.m., defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1252 (c) in the Village of Port Chester, at "S/W BOSTON RD FROM BOA LOT." In a separate simplified traffic information, defendant was charged with disobeying a traffic control device ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1110 [a] ). This latter simplified information indicates that a supporting deposition was provided to defendant at the scene. The supporting deposition set forth that, on December 18, 2019 at 2 p.m., in the Village of Port Chester, "S/W BOSTON RD FROM BOA LOT," the complaining officer "DID OBSERVE SAID VEH TRAV S/W WHICH DISOBEYED THE CONSPICUOUSLY POSTED NO LEFT TURN SIGN. SUBJECT THEN CON'T S/W DRIVING BETWEEN LANES OF TRAFFIC."

Defendant moved to dismiss the simplified traffic informations, arguing that the supporting deposition failed to contain factual allegations that provided reasonable cause to believe he committed the traffic infractions charged therein. It does not appear from the record that the Justice Court determined the motion prior to proceeding with the trial. Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of the aforementioned charges, and sentences were imposed. On appeal, defendant contends that the supporting deposition furnished to him failed to provide reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed either offense.

A defendant charged with a traffic infraction can be prosecuted by a jurisdictionally sufficient simplified traffic information alone, and, thus, without any allegations providing reasonable cause...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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