Thus, VTL § 238(2) provides the requirements for initiating a prosecution for parking violations. The statute sets forth five mandatory identification elements which may not be omitted from a parking summons if it is to survive a jurisdictional challenge and avoid dismissal (Matter of Wheels, Inc. v. Parking Violations Bur. of Dept. of Transp. of City of N.Y., 80 N.Y.2d 1014, 592 N.Y.S.2d 659, 607 N.E.2d 806(1992); Matter of Ryder Truck Rental v. Parking Violations Bur. Of Transp. Adm. of City of N.Y., 62 N.Y.2d 667, 476 N.Y.S.2d 285, 464 N.E.2d 983 (1984). The mandatory five elements are 1) plate designation 2) plate type 3) expiration date of registration; 4) make or model of vehicle and 5) body type of vehicle.
To further complicate matters, the license plate number noted on the parking ticket reads "PRDMSHIFT", this is an obvious misdescription of the assigned license plate number, as the statute limits plate numbers to no more than eight characters (VTL §401 [6][B]). This pleading error alone requires dismissal (Matter of Wheels, Inc, v. Parking Violations Bur. Of Dept. Of Transp. Of City of NY, 80 NY2d 1014 [1992]). The Court is aware of the holding in People v. Kreismann, (162 Misd. 2d 726, 728 [Village of Kensington Just Ct, 1994]) which allowed amendment of a " typographical' error when copying the Defendant's plate number onto the summons."
Order, same court and Justice, entered May 30, 2018, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted petitioners' motion to amend the September 26, 2017 order, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The court correctly found that summonses that failed to comply with the requirement to specify the correct body types of the relevant vehicles in accordance with Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) § 238(2) were improperly issued and must be dismissed (seeMatter of Wheels, Inc. v. Parking Violations Bur. of Dept. of Transp. of City of N.Y., 80 N.Y.2d 1014, 1016, 592 N.Y.S.2d 659, 607 N.E.2d 806 [1992] ; see Matter of Nestle Waters N. Am., Inc. v. City of New York, 121 A.D.3d 124, 130, 990 N.Y.S.2d 512 [1st Dept. 2014] ). Given the holding of the Court of Appeals that "a misdescription of any of the five mandatory identification elements [set forth in VTL § 238(2) ] ... mandates dismissal" ( Matter of Wheels, 80 N.Y.2d at 1016, 592 N.Y.S.2d 659, 607 N.E.2d 806 ), respondents' arguments that such a requirement is infeasible and that imprecise designations of body types may be upheld are unavailing.
Section 238 requires strict compliance with the statutory mandate that any misdescription or omission of any prescribed identification element in a notice of violation will lead to dismissal of that violation. Wheels, Inc. v. Parking Violations Bur. of Dept. of Transp. of City of NY , 80 N.Y.2d 1014, 1016, 592 N.Y.S.2d 659, 607 N.E.2d 806 (1992) ; Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Parking Violations Bur. of Dept. of Transp. of City of NY , 62 N.Y.2d 667, 669–70, 476 N.Y.S.2d 285, 464 N.E.2d 983 (1984) ; Nestle Waters N. Am., Inc. v. City of New York , 121 A.D.3d at 129, 990 N.Y.S.2d 512. VTL § 125 defines "Motor Vehicle" as: "every vehicle operated or driven on a public highway that is propelled by any power other than muscular power."
An exact description of a license plate type must be denoted on the summons. See Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Parking Violations Bureau of Transp. Admin. Of City of New York, 62 N.Y.2d 667 (1984); see also Wheels, Inc. v. Parking Violations Bureau of Dept. of Transp. Of City of N.Y., 185 A.D.2d 110 (1st Dep't 1992), aff'd 80 N.Y.2d 1014 (1992) ("We now amplify that decision and hold that a misdescription of any of the five mandatory identification elements also mandates dismissal."). --------
They refer to case law in the New York Court of Appeals which established that the "provisions explicitly prescribed by the Legislature in the [VTL § 238(2)] statute are mandatory" ( Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Parking Violations Bureau et al., 62 N.Y.2d 667, 476 N.Y.S.2d 285, 286, 464 N.E.2d 983 (Ct.App. 1984)) and held that "a misdescription of any of the five mandatory identification elements also mandates dismissal." ( Wheels, Inc. v. Parking Violations Bureau, et al., 80 N.Y.2d 1014, 592 N.Y.S.2d 659, 607 N.E.2d 806 (Ct.App. 1992). Plaintiffs note that since the 1995 amendment, the PVB ALJs were explicitly and unlawfully directed to "cease engaging in the activities known as . . . `Wheels' reviews of judgment and non-judgment summons," i.e., to cease dismissing summonses sua sponte unless due process is implicated. Exh. F at 2.
See COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, REPORT ON BILL No. 2-195, at 20 (May 24, 1978).In re Wheels, Inc. v. Parking Violations Bureau of the Dep't of Transp. of the City of New York, 80 N.Y.2d 1014, 592 N.Y.S.2d 659, 607 N.E.2d 806 (1992); In re Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Parking Violations Bureau of the Transp. Admin. of the City of New York, 62 N.Y.2d 667, 476 N.Y.S.2d 285, 464 N.E.2d 983 (1984).
Petitioner argues that the notice of violation should have been dismissed because it misdescribed the place of occurrence, which is a required component of such a document (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 238[2], [2–a][b] ; 19 RCNY 39–02[a][1], [3]; Matter of Ryder Truck Rental v. Parking Violations Bur. of Transp. Admin. of City of N.Y., 62 N.Y.2d 667, 476 N.Y.S.2d 285, 464 N.E.2d 983 [1984] ; Matter of Wheels, Inc. v. Parking Violations Bur. of Dept. of Transp. of City of N.Y., 80 N.Y.2d 1014, 592 N.Y.S.2d 659, 607 N.E.2d 806 [1992] ). However, the notice of parking violation clearly described the place of occurrence as "Rockaway Park Mun Pkg Fld."
Since there was no verification pursuant to CPL 100.30 the summonses were not valid as accusatory instruments (Matter of Shirley v. Schulman, supra, at 917). Dismissal of the traffic summonses is further warranted for the additional reason that these failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 238 (2) (see, Matter of Wheels, Inc. v. Parking Violations Bur., 80 N.Y.2d 1014; Matter of Ryder Truck Rental v. Parking Violations Bur., 62 N.Y.2d 667). The statute sets forth five identification elements which must appear on a traffic ticket: (1) plate description; (2) plate type as shown by the registration plates of said vehicle; (3) expiration date; (4) make or model; and (5) body type of said vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 238; see, Carrieri, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 62A, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 238, at 149).
Since there was no verification pursuant to CPL 100.30 the summonses were not valid as accusatory instruments (Matter of Shirley v. Schulman, supra at 917, 573 N.Y.S.2d 456, 577 N.E.2d 1048). Dismissal of the traffic summonses is further warranted for the additional reason that these failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law & 238(2) (see, Matter of Wheels, Inc. v. Parking Violations Bureau of the Department of Transportation of the City of New York, 80 N.Y.2d 1014, 592 N.Y.S.2d 659, 607 N.E.2d 806; Matter of Ryder Truck Rental v. Parking Violations Bureau, 62 N.Y.2d 667, 476 N.Y.S.2d 285, 464 N.E.2d 983). The statute sets forth five identification elements which must appear on a traffic ticket: (1) plate description; (2) plate type as shown by the registration plates of said vehicle; (3) expiration date; (4) make or model; and (5) body type of said vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 238[2]; see, Carrieri, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 62A, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 238, at 149).