People v. Zavala-Santos, 2021-50898

CourtNew York Justice Court
Writing for the CourtHon. Steven G. Leventhal Associate Village Justice.
PartiesThe People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Jose Zavala-Santos, Defendant.
Docket Number2021-50898
Decision Date02 August 2021

The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
v.

Jose Zavala-Santos, Defendant.

No. 2021-50898

Justice Court of the Village of Lattingtown

August 2, 2021


Unpublished Opinion

Counsel for Plaintiff: Dwight A. Kennedy, Esq. Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C.

Counsel for Defendant: Frank A. DeSousa, Esq.

Hon. Steven G. Leventhal Associate Village Justice.

In five separate Uniform Traffic Tickets issued on March 6, 2020, the defendant was charged with violating various sections of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law. In response to a timely request for supporting depositions, the defendant was provided with a single supporting deposition referencing one of the Uniform Traffic Ticket numbers, and purporting to provide additional information with respect to the violations charged in each of the five Uniform Traffic Tickets.

In Uniform Traffic Ticket K019BLMB15, it was charged that the defendant violated Section 509-2 of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law on March 6, 2020, at 6:53 a.m., in front of 232 Bayville Road, in the Village of Lattingtown, New York. The Uniform Traffic Ticket described the violation as "OPERATING OUT OF CLASS". In a supporting deposition of the same date, the issuing Police Officer affirmed that "investigation revealed that motorist was unlicensed."

In Uniform Traffic Ticket K019BLM9VM, it was charged that the defendant violated Section 509-2 of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law on March 6, 2020, at 6:53 a.m., in front of 232 Bayville Road, in the Village of Lattingtown, New York. The Uniform Traffic Ticket described the violation as "OPERATING OUT OF CLASS". In a supporting deposition of the same date, the issuing Police Officer affirmed that "investigation revealed that motorist was unlicensed."

In Uniform Traffic Ticket K019BLM9KX, it was charged that on March 6, 2020, the defendant violated Section 1180(a) of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law. The Uniform Traffic Ticket described the violation as "SPEED NOT REASONABLE & PRUDENT". In a supporting deposition of the same date, the issuing Police Officer affirmed that he "observed motorist operating above listed vehicle at speed not reasonable."

In Uniform Traffic Ticket K019BLM9T5, it was charged that on March 6, 2020, the defendant violated Section 509-8 of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law. The Uniform Traffic Ticket described the violation as "FLD/NOTIFY DMV CHANGE OF ADDRESS". In a supporting deposition of the same date, the issuing Police Officer affirmed that "further investigation revealed that motorist failed to notify DMV of address change."

In Uniform Traffic Ticket K019BLM9X9, it was charged that on March 6, 2020, the defendant violated Section 402-1 of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law. The Uniform Traffic Ticket described the violation as "NO DISTINCTIVE PLATE/INSECURE/DIRTY". In a supporting deposition of the same date, the issuing Police Officer affirmed that the "plate was obstructed."

Defendant moves for an order dismissing all charges pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Sections 100.20, 100.25, 100.40, 170.30 and 170.35 on the grounds that: (i) the supporting deposition referenced only Uniform Traffic Ticket Number K019BLM9KX and, therefore, the People failed to produce a supporting deposition for the other Uniform Traffic Tickets; (ii) the supporting deposition failed to supplement the Uniform Traffic Tickets with factual allegations of an evidentiary character tending to support the charges; and (iii) the accusatory instruments failed to provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offenses charged.

Criminal Procedure Law Section 100.20 provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] supporting deposition is a written instrument containing factual allegations of an evidentiary character which supplement those of the accusatory instrument and support or tend to support the charge or charges contained therein." Criminal Procedure Law Section 100.25 requires that the supporting deposition contain "allegations of fact providing reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense or offenses charged." See, People v. Hohmeyer, 70 N.Y.2d 41, 43 (1987).

In People v. Tsys...

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