Opinion
2005-676 NCR.
Decided June 22, 2006.
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Great Neck Estates, Nassau County (Harold M. Hoffman, J.), rendered April 19, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of leaving the scene of an accident involving an injury to an animal.
Judgment of conviction affirmed.
PRESENT: ANGIOLILLO, J.P., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ.
Defendant was charged in a simplified traffic information with leaving the scene of an accident involving an injury to an animal in violation of section 601 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Defendant was found guilty of said charge following a nonjury trial. On this appeal, defendant contends that the court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the simplified traffic information for facial insufficiency, and in admitting into evidence testimony regarding treatment rendered to the animal. Defendant further contends that the People failed to establish that the animal was in fact injured, a necessary element of the violation.
A simplified traffic information is sufficient on its face when it designates the offense charged ( People v. Grabel, 2 Misc 3d 128 [A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51703[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists]; People v. Corn, NYLJ, Nov. 13, 1985 [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists]; see also CPL 100.10 [a]), substantially conforms to the form prescribed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (CPL 100.25, 100.40; People v. Weinert, 178 Misc 2d 675, 679 [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 1998]) and provides the court with sufficient information to establish that it has jurisdiction to hear the case ( see People v. Grabel, 2 Misc 3d 128 [A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51703[U], supra). Since the simplified traffic information issued to defendant satisfied the aforementioned criteria, the court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss same.
The dog's owner testified that she observed defendant's vehicle strike her dog, cause injury to it and fail to stop ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 601). The owner stated that she observed the vehicle proceed down the block and park, and she saw the driver exit said vehicle. She further testified that her dog was thrown by the vehicle onto the curb, was injured and treated at Great Neck Animal Hospital. Said evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620), was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the credible evidence ( see CPL 470.15).
Finally, as to the admission of testimony concerning the treatment rendered to complainant's dog by the veterinarian, we find that the error, if any, was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt ( see People v. Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).
Angiolillo, J.P., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.