People v. Mulligan

• Decision Date: 26 August 1970
• Citation: 314 N.Y.S.2d 421,64 Misc.2d 143
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Jacqueline J. MULLIGAN, Defendant.
• Court: New York District Court

Page 421

314 N.Y.S.2d 421

64 Misc.2d 143

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Jacqueline J. MULLIGAN, Defendant.

District Court, Suffolk County, First District.

Aug. 26, 1970.

George J. Aspland, Dist. Atty., by Hirsch H. Hatz, Bay Shore, of counsel for the People.

Michael J. Ryan, Babylon, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

MARQUETTE L. FLOYD, Judge.

The defendant was served with a summons for driving while intoxicated in the Village of Brightwaters. The summons was made returnable in the Police Justice Court of Brightwaters. However, the information was filed in the District Court, where the action is now pending. The defendant is moving to dismiss claiming that the District Court lacks jurisdiction over misdemeanors committed in a village, which has a police justice court. He bases this claim on Village Law, Section 182, which gives the police justice courts exclusive jurisdiction over misdemeanors committed within the village. The defendant also claims that in any case the District Court does not have jurisdiction in this case because the summons was made returnable in the Brightwaters Police Justice Court. The People oppose the motion citing the subsequently enacted Uniform District Court Act, Section 2001, which gives the District Court and police courts concurrent jurisdiction over misdemeanors. As to the defendant's second argument the People claim that where the summons is returnable has no jurisdictional effect, as it is the information which gives the court jurisdiction over a criminal proceeding.

Village Law Section 182 provides:

'The police justice of a village may hold a court of special sessions therein and shall have in the first instance exclusive jurisdiction to hear, try and determine charges of any misdemeanor committed within such village subject to the right of removal, as provided by the code of criminal procedure, to a court having authority to inquire by the intervention of a grand jury into offenses committed within the county.'

Uniform District Court Act, Section 2001 provides:

'Each of the judges of the court may sit as a court of special sessions, and as such shall have original jurisdiction of all misdemeanors committed at any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court; and, sitting as a magistrate, he shall also hav ejurisdiction of all offenses of a grade less than misdemeanor committed at any place within in such territorial jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in each case shall be concurrent with the jurisdiction of police justices, justices of the peace or judges of city courts within such territory.'

In People v. Monahan, 257 N.Y. 388, 178 N.E. 670, the Court of Appeals held that Village Law, Section 182 gives exclusive jurisdiction to the police justice of a village to hear, try and determine charges of any misdemeanor committed within such village subject to the right of removal as provided by the Criminal Code into a court having authority to inquire by grand jury as to offenses committed within the county.

Justice of the Peace Courts have no jurisdiction to try misdemeanors, which were committed within a village, which has a police justice court in session, as Village Law, Section 182 vests jurisdiction exclusively in the latter court, People v. Humphreyville, 51 Misc.2d 359, 273 N.Y.S.2d 209; People v. Tanner, 208 Misc. 681, 144 N.Y.S.2d 581.

In People v. Kramer, 10 Misc.2d 473, 175 N.Y.S.2d 508 the Nassau County Court spoke of Section 230 of the since repealed Nassau County District Court Act. It said that by passing Section 230 the State Legislature gave Nassau County District Court jurisdiction over all the misdemeanors committed within the county.

The most important case dealing with Uniform District Court Act, Section 2001 is Doran v. District Court of Nassau County, 45 Misc.2d 212, 256 N.Y.S.2d 416. In this case an Article 78 Proceeding was brought in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to enjoin and restrain the District Court of Nassau County from taking any further proceedings on an information charging the petitioner with operating an automobile on a public highway in the City of Glen Cove while intoxicated, Justice Edward Robinson said (p. 215, 256 N.Y.S.2d p. 419):

'Either the City Court of the City of Glen Cove or the District Court of the County of Nassau had original jurisdiction to hear and determine the charge of a violation of Section 1192, subd. 2 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. No information was filed in the City Court of the City of Glen Cove so that no prosecution was commenced in that Court. An information was filed in the District Court of the County of Nassau and prosecution commenced in that Court. The arrest of a defendant does not commence the prosecution ( § 144, Code of Crim.Pro.). Thus, the question as to whether an arrest of the petitioner was actually made on the night of the accident becomes academic.'

There is an obvious conflict between Village Law, Section 182, wich gives Village Police Justice Courts exclusive jurisdiction over misdemeanors and Uniform District Court Act, Section 2001, which provides that the District Court has concurrent jurisdiction with police justice courts over misdemeanors. Section 182 of the Village Law was enacted in 1909. The Uniform District Court Act, Section 2001 was enacted in 1963. McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York, Statutes, Book I, Page 432 and 433, Section 398 states:

'If without violating the established canons of interpretation the courts can so construe two statutes that they will be in harmony, it is their duty to give them that effect. But, if the statutes are in irreconcilable conflict, it is likewise the duty of the courts to declare the abrogation of the earlier. Every statute is by implication a repeal of all prior statutes, so far as it is repugnant and contrary thereto; for the latest constitutional enactment must be deemed the law to which all earlier statutes must submit so far as conflict exists.'

Based on this canon of statutory interpretation the Uniform District Court Act, Section 2001 abrogates the previously enacted Village Law, Section 182. Therefore, the present law is that in Nassau and Suffolk County the District Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the village police justice courts of the county over misdemeanors committed in those counties. The cases cited previously, which held that the police justices have exclusive jurisdiction either were decided...