People v. Maradiaga
| Decision Date | 01 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 2011NA025858.,2011NA025858. |
| Citation | 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 51429,36 Misc.3d 1222,957 N.Y.S.2d 266 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Fidel MARADIAGA, Defendant. |
| Court | New York District Court |
36 Misc.3d 1222
957 N.Y.S.2d 266
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 51429
The PEOPLE of the State of New York,
v.
Fidel MARADIAGA, Defendant.
No. 2011NA025858.
New York District Court.
District Court, Nassau County,
First District.
Aug. 1, 2012.
Kathleen Rice, Nassau County District Attorney.
Justin Feinman, Esq., for Defendant.
ANDREW M. ENGEL, J.
Papers Submitted:
+----------------------------+
¦Notice of Motion ¦1¦
+--------------------------+-¦
¦Affirmation in Support ¦2¦
+--------------------------+-¦
¦Affirmation in Opposition ¦3¦
+--------------------------+-¦
¦Reply Affirmation ¦4¦
+----------------------------+
The Defendant is charged with driving while intoxicated, possessing an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle and assault in the third degree, in violation of VTL §§ 1192(2) and 1227(1), and PL § 120.00(3), respectively.
The Defendant now moves for an order (1) dismissing the charges against him, pursuant to CPL §§ 170.30, 170.35, 100.15 and 100.40; (2) directing that a hearing be held pursuant to People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413, 369 N.Y.S.2d 67 (1975); (3) directing that a hearing be held pursuant to Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248 (1979) and Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643;81 S.Ct. 1684 (1961); (4) directing that a hearing be held pursuant to People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 22, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838 (1965); (5) suppressing the results of a chemical test of his breath pursuant to VTL § 1194, or directing that a hearing be held on the related issues prior to trial; and, (6) directing the People to disclose any uncharged acts that will be used at trial to impeach the Defendant, should he testify at trial and that a hearing pursuant to People v.. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849 (1974) and People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286 (1901) be held.
The People consent to the court directing that a hearing be held to determine the voluntariness of any statements attributed to the Defendant. They also consent to a Sandoval hearing being held immediately before the commencement of trial. The People oppose the Defendant's motion in all other respects.
The Defendant is charged with possessing an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle, in violation of VTL § 1227(1), by way of a simplified traffic information. The Defendant is charged with driving while intoxicated, in violation VTL § 1192(2), by way of a simplified traffic information accompanied by a supporting deposition; and, he is charged with assault in the third degree, in violation of PL § 120.00(3), by way of an information accompanied by two supporting depositions.
Applying the provisions of CPL §§ 100.15(1) and (3) and 100.40(1)(c) to all three accusatory instruments, the Defendant argues that all of the charges against him must be dismissed due to the facial insufficiency of all three accusatory instruments. According to the Defendant, each instrument is based upon conclusory allegations, hearsay statements, and/or false allegations. The Defendant also alleges the instruments fail to allege essential elements of the offenses charged.
In opposition, the People, relying on CPL §§ 100.15, 100.25 and 100.40(1)(a-c) and (2), argue that, viewing the allegations in a light most favorable to the People, all necessary elements of the offenses charged have been set forth in a manner appropriate for each accusatory instrument.
The Defendant fails to recognize the significant differences among the three accusatory instruments herein. The Defendant is incorrect in arguing that all “accusatory instrument[s are] insufficient if [they] fail[ ] to contain non-hearsay allegations establishing all elements of the offense charged.” ( Feinman Affirmation 4/26/12, ¶ I1) It is equally erroneous, as the Defendant suggests, that all accusatory instruments “must contain an accusatory and a factual part.' “ ( Feinman Affirmation 4/26/12, ¶ I6) As will be discussed hereinafter, the facial sufficiency requirements of all accusatory instruments cannot be lumped together, as if they were all informations, which is what the Defendant has done herein. The facial sufficiency requirements are different for each accusatory instrument; and, each must be evaluated in accordance with its own particular requirements.
As indicated, the Defendant is charged with possessing an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle, in violation of VTL § 1227(1), by way of a simplified traffic information. “The simplified information is a statutory creation designed to provide an uncomplicated form for handling the large volume of traffic infractions and petty offenses for which it is principally used.” People v. Nuccio, 78 N.Y.2d 102, 571 N.Y.S.2d 693 (1991) As such, the pleading requirements of CPL §§ 100.15 and 100.40(1) do not apply. See: People v. DeRojas, 180 Misc.2d 690, 693 N.Y.S.2d 404 (App.Term, 2nd Dept.1999) Where, as here, no supporting deposition has been demanded, and none provided in support of the offense charged, a simplified traffic information must be substantially in the form prescribed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, See:CPL §§ 100.10, 100.25 and 100.40(2), and will be found facially sufficient if it so complies. See: People v. Nuccio, supra.; People v. Bize, 30 Misc.3d 68, 918 N.Y.S.2d 696 (App. Term 9th & 10th Dept.2010); People v. Weinert, 178 Misc.2d 675, 683 N.Y.S.2d 690 (App. Term 2nd Dept.1998) A simplified traffic information “need not provide on its face reasonable cause to believe defendant committed the offense charged (CPL 100.25, 100.40, subd. 2).” People v. Key, 45 N.Y.2d 111, 408 N.Y.S.2d 16 (1978)
Given these limited and specific requirements governing the facial sufficiency of simplified traffic informations, the absence of “allegations that the alleged open container actually contained alcohol” ( Feinman Affirmation 4/26/12, ¶ I13) does not, as the Defendant suggests, mandate the dismissal of this charge.
The court finds that the simplified traffic information charging a violation of VTL § 1227(1) “on its face [is] legally sufficient since it conform[s] to the requirements prescribed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (citations omitted).” People v. Sasson, 27 Misc.3d 134(A), 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 50748(U) (App.Term 9th & 10th Jud. Dists.2010); See also: People v. Elm, 25 Misc.3d 141(A), 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 52459(U) (App.Term 9th & 10th App. Term 2009)
The Defendant is also charged with driving while intoxicated, by way of simplified traffic information; this one, however, is accompanied by the supporting deposition of Police Officer Mat Murphy and two certified breath cards concerning chemical tests of the Defendant's breath.
This accusatory instrument will be found facially sufficient “when, as provided by subdivision one of section 100.25, [the simplified traffic information] substantially conforms to the requirements therefor prescribed by or pursuant to law;” See:CPL § 100.40(2), and where the supporting depositions “contain 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.” CPL § 100 .25(2); See: People v. Key, 45 N.Y.2d 111, 408 N.Y.S.2d 16 (1978); People v. Hohmeyer, 70 N.Y.2d 41, 517 N.Y.S2d 448 (1987); People v. Titus, 178 Misc.2d 687, 682 N.Y.S.2d 521 (App. Term 2nd Dept.1998); People v. Chittaranjans, 185 Misc.2d 871, 714 N.Y.S.2d 650 (Dist.Ct. Nassau Co.2000) As the Defendant correctly points out:
Reasonable cause to believe that a person committed an offense' exists when evidence of information which appears reliable discloses facts or circumstances which are collectively of such weight and persuasiveness as to convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgement and experience that it is reasonably likely that such offense was committed and that such person committed it. CPL § 70.10(2). ( Feinman Affirmation 4/26/12, ¶ I3)
The supporting deposition of Officer Murphy alleges that on November 19, 2011, at approximately 5:53 p.m., at Jerusalem Avenue, in the Village of Hempstead, Officer Murphy observed the Defendant sitting at the wheel of a 1997 Ford pick up vehicle bearing license plate number EJW6735, with the keys in the ignition and the motor running. At that time, it was observed, by Officer Murphy, that the vehicle in which the Defendant was sitting appeared to have been involved in an accident. It is further alleged that Officer Murphy observed the Defendant to have the odor of an alcoholic beverage, glassy eyes, slurred speech, impaired motor coordination and to be staggering. Officer Murphy alleges that at 5:59 p.m. the Defendant stated that he had been drinking, was coming from a party and was driving to a deli. The supporting deposition further indicates that, based upon information provided by P.O. Nicholson, a breath test operator, that the Defendant's blood alcohol concentration at 7:24 p.m., was .11%. The two certified breath cards accompanying this simplified traffic information also report that the Defendant's blood alcohol concentration was .11%
While the Defendant contests Officer Murphy's alleged observations of the Defendant sitting behind the wheel of the Ford pick up with the keys in the ignition and motor running, “information provided ... by the Defendant, independent investigation and the paperwork filed by the District Attorney's office in connection with this matter,” ( Feinman Affirmation 4/26/12, ¶ I14) allegedly to the contrary, is irrelevant when considering the facial sufficiency of an accusatory instrument. The sufficiency of the instrument must be determined from “within the four corners of the instrument itself' or in annexed supporting depositions[,]” People v. Thomas, 4 NY3d 143, 791 N.Y.S.2d 68 (2005); See also: People v. Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 354, 717 N.Y.S.2d 88 (2000); People v. Bottari, 31 Misc.3d 90, 924 N.Y.S.2d 733 (9th & 10th Jud. Dists.2011); People v. Milowski, 34 Misc.3d 137(A), 946 N.Y.S.2d 68 (App. Term...
To continue reading
Request your trial