People v. Siebenrock

• Decision Date: 14 December 1970
• Citation: 65 Misc.2d 181,317 N.Y.S.2d 214
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Howard D. SIEBENROCK.
• Court: New York Court of Special Sessions

Page 214

317 N.Y.S.2d 214

65 Misc.2d 181

The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Howard D. SIEBENROCK.

Court of Special Sessions of Town of Webster, Monroe County.

Dec. 14, 1970.

Jack B. Lazarus, Dist. Atty., Monroe County, for the People; William G. Servis, Rochester, of counsel.

Michael Polozie, Rochester, for defendant.

DECISION

C. BENN FORSYTH, Town Judge.

This matter came on for trial for a violation of Section 1126(a) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, crossing a double yellow line. At the time of the trial the defendant moved to dismiss this case upon the grounds that the verified Bill of Particulars did not state that it was on Information and Belief. Such Motion is denied.

These proceedings were commenced with a simplified Traffic Information pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 147--a. The defendant demanded a Bill of Particulars pursuant to Section 147--f and g. The Bill of Particulars is for the purpose of giving the defendant reasonable information as to the nature and character of the violation (Section 147--g). This purpose can be accomplished by anyone having knowledge of the offense (whether or not he was an eye witness) as long as the prosecution has (1) made a sufficient disclosure so the defendant may prepare his defense, and (2) is limited in its proof to such disclosure; it does not matter who verifies the Bill of Particulars.

The Court's jurisdiction rests on the simplified Traffic Information and not the Bill of Particulars (People v. Weeks, 39 Misc.2d 765, 242 N.Y.S.2d 121 rev. on other grounds 13 N.Y.2d 944, 244 N.Y.S.2d 316, 194 N.E.2d 132). Therefore the Bill of Particulars need not meet all the formal requirements of an Information, People v. Samsel, 59 Misc.2d 833, 300 N.Y.S.2d 777; Simplified Traffic Information may be upon Information on belief, without so stating, People v. Boback, 23 N.Y.2d 189, 295 N.Y.S.2d 912, 243 N.E.2d 135.

It would seem inconsistent to then require a higher standard of the Bill of Particulars than the Information.

It should also be mentioned that if the legislature had intended the requirement or personal knowledge of tose verifying Bills of Particulars, they should have said so, People v. Baratta, 56 Misc.2d 477, 288 N.Y.S.2d 976.

The Proof satisfied the Court that the defendant is guilty, and he therefore was fined $10.00.