Opinion
09-21-2023
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rufus Davis, Defendant-Appellant.
Unpublished Opinion
MOTION DECSION
PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Brigantti, James, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Tandra L. Dawson, J.), rendered February 12, 2019, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of unlicensed driving, and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction (Tandra L. Dawson, J.), rendered February 12, 2019, affirmed.
The accusatory instrument, assessed under the standard applicable to a information (see People v Hatton, 26 N.Y.3d 364, 368 [2015]), was not jurisdictionally defective. Sworn police allegations that on a specified date, defendant operated a motor vehicle "in front of 151 West 145 Street," a location that was a "public highway," was sufficient to establish the public highway element of the charged Vehicle and Traffic Law offenses (see People v Smith, 57 Misc.3d 156 [A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51628[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1120 [2018]; People v Cardona, 53 Misc.3d 137 [A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51466[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1143 [2017]). The Vehicle and Traffic Law broadly defines a public highway as "[a]ny highway, road, street, avenue, alley, public place, public driveway or any other public way" (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 134; see People v Beyer, 21 A.D.3d 592, 594 [2005], lv denied 6 N.Y.3d 752 [2005]).
Defendant's guilty plea to unlicensed driving (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509[1]), a traffic infraction, in exchange for a $75 fine, was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 382-383 [2015]), despite the absence of a full enumeration of the Boykin rights (see People v Sougou, 26 N.Y.3d 1052 [2015]). In any event, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm his conviction if it does not grant dismissal. Since it cannot be said that no penological purpose would be served by remanding the matter to Criminal Court for further proceedings, dismissal is not warranted and therefore, we affirm on this basis as well (see People v Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d at 385 n; People v Teron, 139 A.D.3d 450 [2016]).