People v. Miller

• Decision Date: 20 May 1983
• Citation: 465 N.Y.S.2d 120,120 Misc.2d 30
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Martin MILLER, Defendant.
• Court: New York Town Court

Page 120

465 N.Y.S.2d 120

120 Misc.2d 30

The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Martin MILLER, Defendant.

Town Court of Starkey Yates County.

May 20, 1983.

Richard N. Aswad, Binghamton, Yates County Asst., for the motion.

Robert C. Foster, Penn Yan, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff.

DECISION AND ORDER

JOHN P. WILGUS, Town Justice.

Criminal action in this case was commenced with the filing of an information in this court on January 14, 1983, charging the defendant with violation of Section 210.05 of the Penal Law (Perjury in the Third Degree) one count, and of Section 224(4) of the Education Law (falsely representing the receiving of a college or university degree) two counts.

Defendant filed an omnibus motion requesting that the Information in this case be dismissed on the grounds that this court lacks jurisdiction; that the Information is defective; and that dismissal is required in the interest of justice.

Plaintiff opposed the motion.

The first issue in this case is that of whether the Town Court of Starkey has geographical jurisdiction over offenses which are alleged to have been committed at the Board of Education Office in the Dundee Central School, in the Village of Dundee, Town of Starkey, County of Yates, New York.

The precedents cited by the Defendant, People v. Hattemer, 4 A.D.2d 775, 165 N.Y.S.2d 196, aff'd 4 N.Y.2d 835, 173 N.Y.S.2d 811, 150 N.E.2d 239 and People v. Hickey, 40 N.Y.2d 761, 390 N.Y.S.2d 42, 358 N.E.2d 868 are not wholly germane. In Hattemer, the issue was that testimony alleged to be false was given in one county while defendant was indicted in another county (wherein additional Grand Jury testimony had been taken), but which testimony was found to be insufficient to prove the crime charged. The indictment was dismissed,not on jurisdictional grounds, but for want of sufficient evidence. In Hickey, a town court issued a search warrant for premises located outside the geographical limits of the Town without any allegation or proof that any offense had been committed within the Town. The search warrant was held to be jurisdictionally invalid (absent evidence of criminal conduct in the town of issuance of the warrant). At bar, the alleged criminal conduct occurred within the geographical limits of the Town (since the Village lies wholly within the Town). Thus, here the primary issue of legal jurisdiction is much narrower than Hickey.

In the instant case, it appears that the District Attorney was relying on what he presumed to be concurrent jurisdiction held by the Village Court of the Village of Dundee and the Town Court of the Town of Starkey, since the former municipality is located entirely within the latter. While this is a valid assessment as it pertains to civil matters (see Uniform Justice...