People v. Ventura

• Citation: 78 Misc.3d 405,184 N.Y.S.3d 873
• Docket Number: Docket No. CR-029116-21SU
• Decision Date: 26 January 2023
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Meredith VENTURA, Defendant
• Court: New York District Court

78 Misc.3d 405
184 N.Y.S.3d 873

PEOPLE of the State of New York
v.
Meredith VENTURA, Defendant

Docket No. CR-029116-21SU

District Court, New York, Suffolk County, First District.

Decided on January 26, 2023

Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney of Suffolk County, Brandon Wong / Of Counsel, District Court Bureau, 400 Carleton Avenue, Central Islip, NY 11722, for the People.

Michael J. Brown, Esq., 320 Carleton Avenue, Suite 2000, Central Islip, NY 11722, for defendant.

Eric Sachs, J.

184 N.Y.S.3d 874

78 Misc.3d 406

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.

78 Misc.3d 407

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 Court dismissed facially insufficient traffic infractions, and initial CoC/SoR was rendered illusory when People failed to do so]. Accord , People v Ausby , 46 Misc 3d 126(A), 7 N.Y.S.3d 244 [App. Term 1st Dep't 2014] [statement of readiness as to converted charge effectively stopped speedy trial

...