People v. Kramer
| Decision Date | 08 December 1967 |
| Citation | 55 Misc.2d 550,285 N.Y.S.2d 763 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Robert KRAMER, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Court of Special Sessions |
Robert J. Kane, Dansville, for the prosecution.
Robert L. McAllister, Wayland, for defendant.
Following arraignment, defendant moved to dismiss the uniform traffic complaint, #70917, served upon him on November 12, 1967 which accused him of speeding on that day in violation of Section 61, paragraph 12 of the ordinances of the Village of Dansville.
The motion, upon which the Court reserved decision, is made to dismiss the information and discharge the defendant upon the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction, since a proper complaint had not been filed with the Court, because of the fact that the information filed alleges a violation of a village ordinance rather than a violation of Section 1180 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
Defendant calls this defect vital, since the question goes to the jurisdiction of the Court, claiming that driving in excess of a speed limit set by a village, is not a violation of the village's ordinance, per se, but rather a violation of Section 1180 b (subdivision 3) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. While counsel cites the old law and enumerated sections, which are no longer in effect or applicable here, the Court will proceed on the assumption that he means and refers to Section 1180(d) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, lastly amended and effective October 1, 1966.
Section 1180, paragraph (d) of the present Vehicle and Traffic Law is precisely former paragraph 3, subdivision (b) of Section 1180 section 3 of chapter 519 of the laws of 1961 and section 1 of chapter 950 of the Laws of 1966, and it says: 'Whenever maximum speed limits, other than school speed limits, have been established as authorized in sections * * * sixteen hundred forty-three * * * no person shall drive in excess of such maximum speed limits at any time.' Section 1643 and its predecessor sections, empowers cities and villages to enact ordinances prescribing maximum speeds upon its highways within such city or village.
Pursuant to the applicable provisions enacted by the legislature, the Village of Dansville in Section 61, paragraph 12 of its ordinances provided that the maximum speed in the village to be 30 miles per hour and pursuant to said ordinance the defendant was issued a summons for a violation of said ordinance and changed with driving at a speed of 38 miles per hour, that being more than the maximum speed allowed.
It is claimed that in the first instance, defendant violated the village ordinance relating to speed, and he was so charged. Defendant claims that, if he did so violate the ordinance, such a violation was a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and that he should be charged thereunder.
It would appear that the question to be decided is, 'What law controls the speed limits within the State of New York?'
The rules concerning an information in a criminal matter also apply to a traffic offense (People v. Orzechowski, 4 Misc.2d 484, 158 N.Y.S.2d 884) and where an information is defective, a justice acquires no jurisdiction and there can be no conviction. People v. Staples, 5 Misc.2d 619, 162 N.Y.S.2d 131. I would believe one of the cardinal rules to be that a defendant must be fully apprised of the facts and the law which he is being accused of violating.
In People v. Weale, 52 Misc.2d 889, 277 N.Y.S.2d 363, a defendant was charged and found guilty of violating an ORDINANCE governing speed of vehicles, though charged in the information with a violation of Section 1180, paragraph 3 of subdivision (b), when in fact that particular section and subdivision was no longer existent or in effect, the paragraph sequence having been changed to omit paragraphs 1 and 2 of subdivision (b) and redesignate former paragraph 3 of subdivision (b) so that it was stated to be known as subdivision (d). The Court there felt that the information could have been corrected or amended to conform with the new designation. It is worthy of note that in the Weale case the particular ordinance violated was not mentioned in the information nor was the violation of it charged in the information. No attempt to amend the information here in question.
Article 22 of title IV of chapter 698 of the Laws of 1957 provided for uniform State-wide application, section 1600 thereof setting forth the specific language therefor, and says in part: 'no local authority shall enact or enforce any local law, ordinance, order, rule or regulation in conflict with the provisions of this chapter unless expressly authorized herein.'
A 1957 revision note says: 'Although fully retaining control by the various public authorities over the establishment of maximum speed limits, the proposed law establishes violations of such speed limits as violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, subject to the regular penalties provided in such law.' The New York Comptroller in a 1962 opinion stated:...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Morris
..."defect" was jurisdictional and that the Court had no authority to allow any amendment to the information, citing People v. Kramer, 55 Misc.2d 550, 285 N.Y.S.2d 763 (1967), People v. Scanlan, 27 Misc.2d 442, 211 N.Y.S.2d 635 (1961), and Opinion of the State Comptroller 62-937 (1962), as wel......
-
People v. Demar
...288 N.Y.S.2d 976, Judge Henry J. Kalinowski of this Court was faced with the question. After noting that the court in People v. Kramer, 55 Misc.2d 550, 285 N.Y.S.2d 763 had held such an error to be a jurisdictional defect, Judge Kalinowski disagreed with Kramer, supra, and followed the rati......
-
People v. Fried
...many different speeding fines as there are municipal subdivisions in the state and that would be patently absurd. People v. Kramer, 55 Misc.2d 550, 285 N.Y.S.2d 763 (1967) and People v. Blattman, 50 Misc.2d 606, 270 N.Y.S.2d 903 (1966). See also 1977 Opinion of the Attorney General (inf) 13......
-
People v. Baratta
...1180 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law has been the basis of a number of reported lower court decisions, the last being People v. Kramer, 55 Misc.2d 550, 285 N.Y.S.2d 763, where it was held that it was jurisdictionally The Court in Kramer acknowledges that prior decisions hold an information s......