People v. Sorrentino, No. ST144R9LRV.

CourtNew York City Court
Writing for the CourtGARY C. HOBBS, J.
Citation29 N.Y.S.3d 849 (Table)
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Andrew J. SORRENTINO, Defendant.
Docket NumberNo. ST144R9LRV.
Decision Date15 December 2015

29 N.Y.S.3d 849 (Table)

PEOPLE of the State of New York,
v.
Andrew J. SORRENTINO, Defendant.

No. ST144R9LRV.

City Court, Warren County.

Dec. 15, 2015.


Margaret D. Place, Esq., Warren County Assistant District Attorney, for the People.

Jeffrey C. Matte, Esq., Matte & Nenniger, P.C., for the Defendant.

GARY C. HOBBS, J.

Findings of Fact

On or about September 1, 2015, the Defendant was charged with the traffic offense of Following Too Closely [Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a) ]. A timely request was made for a supporting deposition. On or about November 11, 2015, Officer Randy Strattman served and filed a supporting deposition. The supporting deposition states that the defendant was charged with a violation of Following Too Closely because the “Defendant was involved in a property damage accident” and he “was unable to stop before striking the vehicle in front of him.” The supporting deposition states that the charge is based on the Officer's information and belief. However, there is no information indicating the source of the Officer's information and belief. Attached to the supporting deposition is a CPL 710.30 Notice, which states that the defendant told Officer Strattman, “I didn't have time to stop.”

By Notice of Motion, dated November 13, 2015, the defendant moved to dismiss the charge filed against him on the grounds that the supporting deposition indicates that the charge is based on the Officer's “information and belief,” but fails to indicate the source of that information or belief. The defendant further asserts that the supporting deposition fails to set forth a factual basis to establish all of the essential elements of Following Too Closely. By letter dated December 10, 2015, the People oppose the defendant's motion asserting that the motion “relies on statutes that relate to Informations and Complaints, not to Uniform Traffic Tickets” and, as a result, the People assert that the motion is defective and must be denied.

Conclusions of Law

Section 100.25(2) of the CPL entitles a defendant charged with a traffic offense to receive a supporting deposition of the police officer containing allegations of fact providing reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged:

“A defendant charged by a simplified information is, upon a timely request, entitled as a matter of right to have filed with the court and served upon him, or if he is represented by an attorney, upon his attorney, a supporting deposition of the complainant police officer or public servant, containing allegations of fact, based either upon personal knowledge or upon information and belief, providing reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense or offenses charged.” CPL § 100.25(2).1

Section 100.20 of the CPL prescribes the required content of a supporting deposition. More specifically, CPL 100.20 states:

“A supporting deposition is a written instrument accompanying or filed in connection with an information, a simplified information, a misdemeanor complaint or a felony complaint, subscribed and verified by a person other than the complainant of such accusatory instrument, and containing factual allegations of an evidentiary character, based either upon personal knowledge or upon information and belief, which supplement those...

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