People v. McGettrick
| Decision Date | 25 April 1988 |
| Citation | 528 N.Y.S.2d 758,139 Misc.2d 403 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Wayne T. McGETTRICK. |
| Court | New York City Court |
Paul Czajka, Dist. Atty., Hudson, for the People.
Robert J. Gagen, Hudson, for defendant.
On October 6, 1987, Defendant was charged by simplified traffic information with Driving While Ability Impaired in violation of Section 1192(1) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
In addressing Defendant's application for various forms of relief, the Court will follow the format set forth in Defendant's Omnibus Motion.
Section 100.45 of the Criminal Procedure Law states: "The provisions of section 200.95, governing bills of particulars with respect to indictments, apply to informations, to misdemeanor complaints and to prosecutor's informations." The statute provides no authority for a bill of particulars where the accusatory instrument is a simplified information. See People v. Cohen, 131 Misc.2d 898, 502 N.Y.S.2d 123 (1986).
Where the accusatory instrument is a simplified information, additional factual information can be obtained by requesting a supporting deposition. The court notes that the defendant has received a supporting deposition and indeed defense counsel has attached the same to his motion papers. The validity of its fill in the blank format was upheld by the Court of Appeals in People v. Hohmeyer, 70 N.Y.2d 41, 517 N.Y.S.2d 448, 510 N.E.2d 317 (1987). Accordingly, the motion for a bill of particulars is denied.
Even if a bill of particulars were authorized under section 100.45, the court would deny the motion on the authority of People v. Vaccarielli, 120 Misc.2d 1092, 467 N.Y.S.2d 158 (1983), wherein the Saratoga County Court held that a defendant who failed to utilize the request procedure set forth in section 200.95(2) was not entitled to an order requiring the prosecutor to provide a Bill.
Criminal Procedure Law sections 240.20, 240.30 and 240.40 make discovery available to defendants, against whom certain accusatory instruments are pending. In 1983 the Legislature added the words, "simplified information charging a misdemeanor" to the list of pending accusatory instruments in the aforesaid sections. Clearly, then, discovery is not authorized where the accusatory instrument is a simplified information charging a traffic infraction as in the instant case. See People v. Cohen, 131 Misc.2d 898, 502 N.Y.S.2d 123 (1986). Presumably the intent of the Legislature in enacting the 1983 amendment was to make it clear that discovery was available in Driving While Intoxicated cases. Although...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rittershaus
...defendant's demands, which provided a copy of the accusatory instrument and other items related to the charges (see People v. McGettrick, 139 Misc.2d 403 [NY City Ct 1988] ). Any further information requested is not within the scope of a bill of particulars (see CPL § 200.95[1] ). According......
-
People v. Bernier
...as set forth in the Criminal Procedure Law, is not available to a defendant with a pending traffic infraction. See , People v. McGettrick, 139 Misc. 2d 403, 528 N.Y.S.2d 758 (Hudson City Ct., Columbia County, 1988). Likewise, a motion to suppress evidence, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law......
-
In the Matter of C.W.J., 2007 NY Slip Op 51454(U) (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 7/31/2007), XX07.
...as untimely, holding that a request is timely made within 30 days of arraignment on the charge and before trial. Accord, People v. McGettrick, 139 Misc 2d 403 (City Ct of New York, Hudson, Columbia Cty, The initial appearance in this case was held on March 19, 2007. The Respondent appeared ......
-
People v. Malone
...particulars request, as noted earlier, nor the discovery demand is available (see CPL 100.45(4), 240.20(1); see also People v. McGettrick, 139 Misc.2d 403, 528 N.Y.S.2d 758). The supporting deposition is, in effect, the only discovery device open to a defendant; and, given the relatively mi......