People v. Navon, 2020-729 S CR

CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
Citation155 N.Y.S.3d 30 (Table),73 Misc.3d 136 (A)
Docket Number2020-729 S CR
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Steven NAVON, Appellant.
Decision Date10 November 2021

73 Misc.3d 136 (A)
155 N.Y.S.3d 30 (Table)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
Steven NAVON, Appellant.

2020-729 S CR

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York, Second Dept., 9 & 10 Jud. Dist.

Decided on November 10, 2021

Scott Lockwood, for appellant.

Suffolk County Traffic Prosecutor's Office (Justin W. Smiloff of counsel), for respondent.


ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

In a simplified traffic infraction, defendant was charged with using a mobile telephone while operating a motor vehicle ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-c [2] [a] ). On March 11, 2020, immediately prior to the commencement of a nonjury trial, defense counsel moved to, in effect, dismiss the charge on the ground that the People failed to file a certificate of compliance pursuant to CPL 245.50 (1) and that they could not announce their readiness for trial (see CPL 30.30 [1] [e] ). The court denied the motion. At the trial, the police witness testified that he observed defendant's lips moving while holding a cell phone to his left ear at the time he was operating a motor vehicle on the Southern State Parkway. Following the trial, defendant was found guilty of using a mobile telephone while operating a motor vehicle.

On appeal, defendant contends, among other things, that the People were required to announce their readiness for trial within 30 days after commencement of the action, citing CPL 30.30 (1) (d), (e), and they could not declare their readiness for trial in the absence of a certificate of compliance filed pursuant to CPL 245.50.

Effective January 1, 2020, article 245 replaced article 240 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Subsequently, effective May 3, 2020, section 245.10 (a) of the CPL was amended to add section (1) (iii), which allows discovery in cases involving traffic infractions. Prior to these enactments, this court had held, citing former section 240.20 (1) of the CPL then in effect, that a criminal "defendant was not entitled to discovery because she was prosecuted on a simplified traffic information charging her with a mere...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT