People v. Ventura

• Citation: 2023 NY Slip Op 23021
• Decision Date: 26 January 2023
• Docket Number: Docket No. CR-029116-21SU
• Parties: People of the State of New York v. Meredith Ventura, Defendant
• Court: New York District Court

2023 NY Slip Op 23021

People of the State of New York
v.
Meredith Ventura, Defendant

Docket No. CR-029116-21SU

District Court of Suffolk County, First District

January 26, 2023

Raymond A. Tierney District Attorney of Suffolk County Brandon Wong / Of Counsel

Michael J. Brown, Esq. Attorney for Defendant

ERIC SACHS, J.

Upon the following papers read on these motions for omnibus relief:

Notice of Motion/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and supporting papers X;

Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers;

Answering Affidavits and supporting papers X;

Replying Affidavits and supporting papers;Filed papers; Other Exhibits X; Certificate(s) of Compliance X;

(and after hearing counsel in support of and opposed to the motion) it is, ORDERED that this motion by the defendant is decided as follows: The defendant's motion to strike the CoC/SoR is DENIED. The defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instruments based upon an alleged violation of her statutory speedy trial rights is DENIED.

On November 6, 2021, the defendant was arrested and charged under Docket No. CR-029116-21SU with one count of Driving While Intoxicated in violation of New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law ("VTL") § 1192.3, an unclassified misdemeanor, and Reckless Driving in violation of VTL § 1212, an unclassified misdemeanor, along with seven traffic infractions. ^[1] She was arraigned on November 7, 2021.

A. Prior Motion History

By motion dated March 23, 2022, the defendant moved this Court for an order (1) dismissing three informations charging traffic infractions as legally insufficient; (2) striking the CoC/SoR as invalid; and (3) dismissing all accusatory instruments based upon an alleged violation of her statutory speedy trial rights.

In an order dated July 27, 2022, this Court (1) granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the three informations charging traffic infractions, (2) denied the defendant's motion to strike the CoC/SoR, and (3) denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instruments based upon the alleged violation of her speedy trial rights.

With respect to the defendant's prior motion to strike the CoC/SoR, the defendant argued that where a defendant is charged in multiple accusatory instruments, and the People have certified in a single CoC/SoR as to the legal sufficiency of all accusatory instruments, and some of those accusatory instruments are later deemed facially insufficient, the entire CoC/SoR is invalid. In its prior order, this Court rejected that argument, and held that the People's initial CoC/SoR was valid despite the fact that three accusatory instruments were legally insufficient. This Court reasoned:

"It is the opinion of this Court that where the People certified as to the legal sufficiency of all accusatory instruments, and some accusatory instruments are later deemed facially insufficient, the initial CoC/SoR is nevertheless still valid as to the remaining accusatory instruments

Therefore, the fact that three accusatory instruments are deemed by this Court to be facially insufficient does not render the CoC/SoR filed on December 14, 2021 invalid with respect to the remaining charges. See e.g., People v Ward, 73 Misc.3d 1221(A), 155 N.Y.S.3d 287 [City Ct, City of Poughkeepsie 2021] [CoC/SoR containing facially insufficient traffic infractions was not invalid on ground that it included such infractions, where defendant was also charged with other offenses; nevertheless, the People were required to file supplemental CoC/SoR after

...