Opinion
LT 409732-1.
Decided December 21, 2005.
In this traffic case, defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle without insurance in violation of VTL § 319.1 and speeding at 70 MPH in a 55 MPH zone in violation of VTL § 1180(B) on July 1, 2005 in the Village of Muttontown. Defendant entered pleas not guilty and requested a supporting deposition by mail on August 9, 2005, prior to the due date of August 11, 2005 specified in the tickets.
Defendant has moved to dismiss this matter on the grounds, allegedly, that defendant was not served timely with a supporting deposition and that, in any event, the supporting deposition was insufficient or defective since [a] it incorrectly lists the date of the incident as July 1, 2004 instead of July 1, 2005, and [b] it does not provided sufficient detail as to the exact location (i.e., a cross-street or other specific location on Route 25A) where the alleged violations occurred. The motion is denied.
As the People note, the supporting deposition was served on August 30, 2005, within 30 days of the demand for it, which was made on August 9, 2005. Thus, service was timely. People v. Rossi, 154 Misc 2d 616, 619 (Jus. Ct. Muttontown). See also People v. Nuccio, 78 NY2d 102, 104; People v. Aucello, 146 Misc 2d 417, 418 (App. Term 2d Dept.). The Court rejects defendant's contention that service was not timely since the supporting deposition served was allegedly insufficient and defective. The timeliness of service is dependent on the legal sufficiency of the supporting deposition, but rather merely on the dates of the demand and of the service. An objection to the legal sufficiency of the supporting deposition is a separate and different object from an objection of timeliness, and, in this case, is dealt with as such below.
The error in the date was obviously an oversight, i.e., a "type-o" as the People describe it.
Under some circumstances, even such an inadvertent error might nevertheless render a supporting deposition defective. People v. Stridiron, 175 Misc 2d 16, 17 and 19(mistaken date in domestic incident report held fatal since, in that type of case, the DIR is required to corroborate the criminal charge). But, in a traffic action, the supporting deposition serves a different function and is subject to "different and lesser requirements" than in a criminal case. People v. Greenfield, 9 Misc 3d 1113 (A), 2005 NY Slip Op. 51518(U), 2005 NY Misc LEXIS 2061, 2005 WL 2335491; People v. Rose, 2005 NY Slip Op 25126 at *2, 2005 NY Misc LEXIS 629 at **4-5. Where as here, the error was readily discerned by the defendant and undeniably did not cause him any prejudice (since he knew what year he was stopped and ticketed and what the correct date was, and the ticket itself contained the correct date), the error is a harmless irregularity. People v. Modica, 187 Misc 2d 635, 637 (difference in statement of facts in domestic incident report excused where the date of the offense is not an element of the offenses charged since
"the statue does not require precise factual symmetry between the accusatory instrument and the supporting deposition"). See also People v. Olmo, 2 Misc 3d 1012A, 2003 NY Slip Op 51721U; 2003 NY Misc LEXIS 1788. The Court further credits the simplified information's statement of the date as the obviously correct one, since the ticket called for an appearance within a month of July 2005 as is the recognized and customary practice; whereas such an appearance date would have been over a year after July 2004, which is implausible and contrary to recognized practice. Accepting the 2005 date as the correct date, the combination of the simplified information and the supporting deposition are sufficient to state a prima facie case against the defendant, as required. People v. Greenfield, 9 Misc 3d 1113 (A), 2005 NY Slip Op. 51518(U) at 10, 2005 NY Misc LEXIS 2061 at *21, 2005 WL 2335491 at *5. Accord: People v. Inserra, 4 NY3d 30, 32; People v. Key, 45 NY2d 111, 115-16.
The supporting deposition, although not extensively detailed, contains sufficient facts which, together with the simplified information, would support a conviction of the charges alleged, and therefore is sufficient in a case such as this. As explained in Greenfield, 9 Misc 3d 1113 (A), 2005 NY Slip Op. 51518(U), 2005 NY Misc LEXIS 2061 at **21-22, a statement of street and village, as well as the speed and the direction defendant was traveling provides sufficient detail. Accord People v. Milham, Decision and Order of June 3, 1994 (Jus. Ct. Muttontown) (same). See also, as to the requirements for a supporting deposition: Mtr. of Rey R, 188 AD2d 473, 474 (2nd Dept.); People v. Rose, 2005 NY Slip Op. 25126, 2005 NY Misc LEXIS 629 (Dist.Ct. Nassau Co.). As these cases make clear, a supporting deposition in a traffic case can be based on hearsay, as well as non-hearsay; and it need not provide evidentiary details. Rather, all the supporting deposition need state are facts from which it can be reasonably inferred that the violation charge was committed. Determination of whether that, in fact occurred, is to be made at trial. Greenfield, 2005 NY Slip Op. 25126 at 12, 2005 NY Misc LEXIS 2061 at *21; People v. Ortiz, 146 Misc 2d 594, 596 (App. Term 2d Dept.). See also People v. Miles, 64 NY2d 731, 732-33.
The Clerk is therefore directed to deny this motion, and set this matter down for trial or conference.
So ordered.