People v. Reyes
| Decision Date | 21 November 1975 |
| Citation | 375 N.Y.S.2d 794,84 Misc.2d 208 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. James REYES, Defendant. |
| Court | New York City Court |
Thomas K. Saltzman, Bronx, N.Y., for defendant.
The defendant is before the court in response to a universal summons issued on December 13, 1970, charging him with operating a vehicle without insurance, as required by section 319 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
The summons was returnable on December 31, 1970; however, the reverse side of the process indicates that no appearance was made until September 6, 1974, when the defendant entered a plea of not guilty. Some interim dates were set, and a nonjury trial was finally held on October 17, 1975.
As is frequently the case with Vehicle and Traffic violations, substantial time elapsed between the issuance of process and the trial. The People's witness was unable to remember all of the facts. The police officer who had issued the citation was able to identify only the original filed summons which he had signed and issued; he was unable, at this juncture, to identify the defendant presently before the court as the party to whom he had issued the citation some five years ago.
At the close of the People's case, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a prima facie case, and the court reserved decision. Thereafter, defendant testified on his own behalf to the effect that he had purchased the vehicle operated at the time and place mentioned in the ticket. He asserted that the purchase was made subject to inspection, and that when he learned that it would not pass the New York State inspection he unsuccessfully attempted to return it to the vendor. The defendant claimed that not only did he lose the six hundred dollar purchase price but that finally he gave the vehicle away. At the close of the defense presentation, the defendant renewed his application for dismissal. Once again, the court reserved decision.
Vehicle and Traffic Law, section 319 provides:
Thus, defendant's excuse for his failure to insure the vehicle, ownership of which he admitted, is no defense to the charge at bar. There is no doubt that it was the intent of section 319 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to include precisely this situation, and the statutory language clearly indicates that insurance or financial security is required with respect to any motor vehicle which is operated, whether registered or unregistered. Thus, it is defendant's attempted defense which appears to complete the People's otherwise deficient case.
Consequently, the court is faced with the issue of deciding whether the defendant's presentation can be used to bolster the prosecution, or must the court on the motion to dismiss view the evidence as adduced at the completion of the People's case. The court notes that this problem confronts judges in summons parts on a daily basis and that it has been the practice of some...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Scherbner
...and Traffic Law § 319 [2]; People v Weinert, 178 Misc 2d 675, 678 [1998]; People v Hakimi-Fard, 137 Misc 2d 116, 119 [1987]; People v Reyes, 84 Misc 2d 208 [1975].) There does not appear to be authority passing on whether the charging instruments must contain a specific allegation of knowle......