People v. Lupiani
| Court | New York Court of Special Sessions |
| Writing for the Court | SAMUEL FIANDACH |
| Citation | 284 N.Y.S.2d 275,55 Misc.2d 1 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Frank J. LUPIANI, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 06 October 1967 |
Page 275
v.
Frank J. LUPIANI, Defendant.
Page 276
Samuel J. Di Gaetano, Di Gaetano, Dorsey & Iannuzo, Rochester, for defendant.
SAMUEL FIANDACH, Justice of the Peace.
The defendant, Frank J. Lupiani, was arraigned before this Court on August 2, 1967 upon various motor vehicle charges including a charge for 'speeding' in violation of Section 1180(d) of the Vehicle and Traffic Laws of the State of New York, as evidenced by the complaint on Ticket #89998 and violation of Section 1126(a) of the Vehicle and Traffic Laws of the State of New York, to wit, Crossing Double Lines, as evidenced by the complaint on Ticket #98277. The defendant pleaded not guilty and moved to dismiss the information on each of the respective charges on the grounds that on its face, it appeared that this Court lacked jurisdiction.
[55 Misc.2d 2] Ticket #89998 charges the defendant with 'speeding', to wit, driving 90 m.p.h. in a 35 m.p.h. zone. The complaint portion of the uniform traffic packet alleges that one Frank J. Lupiani of 195 Sherman Street, Rochester, New York, Operator's License #L21605--63684--286569, date of birth October 13, 1947, did, while operating a 1967 Corvair on the 14th day of July, 1967 at 11:22 p.m. o'clock in the County of Monroe and Town of Irondequoit, violate Section 1180(d) of the Vehicle and Traffic Laws of the State of New York. The information was duly subscribed and sworn to before Lt. R. Shaffer of the Irondequoit Police Department.
It is a basic rule of law that the alleged violation must be specifically charged in the information with clarity and exactness (People v. Grogan, 260 N.Y. 138, 183 N.E. 273, 86 A.L.R. 1266).
Section 1180(d) of the Vehicle and Traffic Laws of the State of New York reads '(w)henever maximum speed limits * * * have been established as authorized in * * * (section 1622) * * * no person shall drive in excess of such maximum speed limits'.
The information herein clearly sets forth the time and place, to wit, the 'Town of Irondequoit, County of Monroe'. Such allegation is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Special Sessions in the Town of Irondequoit (Section 56(35) of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
Page 277
The complaint alleges a speed in excess of the established limit of 35 m.p.h. which adequately spells out the nature of the charge. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Morris
...(People v. Lewis, 13 N.Y.2d 180, 245 N.Y.S.2d 1, 194 N.E.2d 831); did not include the location of the alleged offense (People v. Lupiani, 55 Misc.2d 1, 284 N.Y.S.2d 275); were not subscribed by an officer with direct knowledge of the incident (People v. Boback, 23 N.Y.2d 189, 295 N.Y.S.2d 9......
-
People v. Morris
...(People v. Lewis, 13 N.Y.2d 180, 245 N.Y.S.2d 1, 194 N.E.2d 831); did not include the location of the alleged offense (People v. Lupiani, 55 Misc.2d 1, 284 N.Y.S.2d 275); were not subscribed by an officer with direct knowledge of the incident (People v. Boback, 23 N.Y.2d 189, 295 N.Y.S.2d 9......