People v. Sands
| Decision Date | 29 August 1963 |
| Citation | 242 N.Y.S.2d 700,40 Misc.2d 94 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Donald R. SANDS, Defendant. |
| Court | New York City Court |
Stephen Smyk, Dist. Atty. (Walter T. Gorman, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel), for the People.
Dann, Cochran & Nachsin, Johnson City (D. Edwin Lyons, of counsel), for defendant.
Defendant Donald R. Sands was arraigned in this court on August 22, 1963, upon a charge of violating Section 1180, Subdivision B3 of the Vehicle & Traffic Law of the State of New York, upon a simplified information signed and sworn to by Officer David Eggleston on August 21, 1963.
At arraignment defendant appeared by his attorney and entered a plea of not guilty. At that time, defendant moved to dismiss the information on the ground that, on its face, it appeared that this court lacked jurisdiction. Decision was reserved on this motion, the case was adjourned to August 28, and thereafter further adjournments were had day-to-day for decision.
The information reads as follows:
CITY COURT
CITY OF BINGHAMTON
BROOME COUNTY, NEW YORK
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
---- vs. ----
Donald R. Sands (Defendants Name)
The undersigned police officer accuses Donald R. Sands (Defendants Name) of the following violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York Speeding (Nature of Violation) In violation of Section 1180-B3 (Number)
Signature of Police Officer
(Jurat)
Nowhere in the information is it alleged that the traffic infraction occurred within the City of Binghamton, County of Broome and State of New York. Nor does the uniform traffic ticket No. 63180, issued to defendant at the time of his arrest, state that the infraction occurred within the City of Binghamton. It merely states that it occurred 'at Court St. County'.
The people contend that Sections 147-c, 147-d and 147-e of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pertaining to simplified traffic informations, were complied with in this case and, accordingly, that the information is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this court and that, furthermore, it may be amplified by a bill of particulars. Defendant, on the other hand, contends that the information, jurisdictionally defective on its face, can not be so corrected by a bill of particulars.
This, so far as now appears, is a case of first impression on this subject, and no authorities precisely on point have been called to the Court's attention, nor has research disclosed any. As pointed out by the District Attorney, the purpose behind the simplified information provided for in Chapter 605, Laws of 1962, was to provide an information of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alexander, Application of
...in other jurisdictions, People v. Webber, 133 Cal. 623, 66 P. 38, State v. Slater, 71 Idaho 335, 231 P.2d 424, People v. Sands, 40 Misc.2d 94, 242 N.Y.S.2d 700 (1963). See Dippold v. Cathlamet Timber Co., 98 Or. 183, 193 P. 909 (see also Annot. 59 A.L.R.2d 901), and other cases, all holding......
-
People v. Lupiani
...the violation of Section 1180(d) of the Vehicle and Traffic Laws of the State of New York. Defendant cites the case of People v. Sands, 40 Misc.2d 94, 242 N.Y.S.2d 700 in his argument on the question of jurisdiction of the Court. A careful analysis and reading of that case indicates that th......
-
People v. Sack
...was to provide an information of sufficient brevity to be used in packet form with the uniform traffic ticket, People v. Sands, 40 Misc.2d 94, 242 N.Y.S.2d 700. Thus a police officer with one sweep of the pen on a handy packet prepares a traffic ticket, a simple information by marking appro......