People v. Kramer

CourtNew York Court of Special Sessions
Citation55 Misc.2d 550,285 N.Y.S.2d 763
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Robert KRAMER, Defendant.
Decision Date08 December 1967

Page 763

285 N.Y.S.2d 763
55 Misc.2d 550
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
v.
Robert KRAMER, Defendant.
Court of Special Sessions of Village of Dansville.
Dec. 8, 1967.

Page 764

Robert J. Kane, Dansville, for the prosecution.

Robert L. McAllister, Wayland, for defendant.

THOMAS M. BOWES, Village Justice.

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 While counsel cites the old law and enumerated sections, which are no longer in effect or applicable here, the Court will proceed on the assumption that he means and refers to Section 1180(d) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, lastly amended and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 as amended by 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 [55 Misc.2d 551] 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

Page 765

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • People v. Morris
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • January 23, 1986
    ...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 well as two ......
  • People v. Demar
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • December 9, 1970
    ...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
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • March 9, 1992
    ...as 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)......
  • People v. Baratta
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • March 26, 1968
    ...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......
4 cases
  • People v. Morris
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • January 23, 1986
    ...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 well as two ......
  • People v. Demar
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • December 9, 1970
    ...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
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • March 9, 1992
    ...as 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)......
  • People v. Baratta
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • March 26, 1968
    ...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......

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