Opinion
Citation No. 64359757
08-21-2023
The People of the State of New York, v. Owner/Operator of Vehicle Bearing Plate Number, NY LCR8653, Defendant.
Unpublished Opinion
ALFRED A. FARELLA ASSOCIATE VILLAGE JUSTICE
Defendant is before the Court in response to a document entitled "PARKING VIOLATION". It is also referred to as an "information/appearance ticket" and bears the above noted unique citation number (the "Appearance Ticket"). The "Appearance Ticket" is captioned, "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK[,] VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW VS. OWNER/OPERATOR OF THE VEHICLE DESCRIBED BELOW."
Upon the Court's own motion, the Appearance Ticket is dismissed in all respects.
The Appearance Ticket was issued in connection with an alleged parking violation which occurred on a specified date and time and at a location described by street name and address number. The front of the document also summarily describes the alleged offense by name. Immediately following the name of the offense is a numerical code without any reference to what law, code, rule or regulation was allegedly violated.
The offending vehicle is described by "PLATE No.", "VIN", "Plate State", "Veh Make", "Veh Model", "Veh Color", and "Veh Body Type". The Appearance Ticket also contains the "Court Date", "Court Time" and identifies the "Officer" by number, presumably his or her badge number, with the word "SIGNATURE" appearing towards the very bottom of the document. A signature follows, however legible, with corresponding badge number.
The reverse side of the "Appearance Ticket" instructs that one may avoid a court appearance by signing the "WAIVER AND AUTHORIZATION" contained therein. Two boxes follow: one to plead guilty; the other, not guilty. The manner and means of payment are also noted. Finally, the reverse side warns of the various sanctions which may be imposed were one to achieve "scofflaw status".
Even though traffic infractions, including parking offenses, are not crimes, such violations are treated as misdemeanors under the Criminal Procedure Law for procedural and jurisdictional purposes (VTL 155). As such, they must be commenced by way of a valid accusatory instrument as defined in section 100.05 of the CPL.
Section CPL 1.20(1)(b) provides that "an appearance ticket issued for a parking infraction" can constitute an "accusatory instrument" where:
(i) such ticket is based on personal knowledge or information and belief of the police officer or other public servant who issues the ticket,
(ii) the police officer or other public servant who issues such ticket verifies that false statements made therein are punishable as a class A misdemeanor,
(iii) the infraction or infractions contained therein are stated in detail and not in conclusory terms so as to provide the defendant with sufficient notice including, but not limited, to the applicable provision of law allegedly violated, and the date, time and particular place of the alleged infraction,
(iv) and such ticket contains:
(1) the license plate designation of the ticketed vehicle,
(2) the license plate type of the ticketed vehicle,
(3) the expiration of the ticketed vehicle's registration,
(4) the make or model of the ticketed vehicle, and
(5) the body type of the ticketed vehicle.
"[W]here the plate type or the expiration date are not shown on either the registration plates or sticker of a vehicle or where the registration sticker is covered, faded, defaced or mutilated so that it is unreadable, the plate type or the expiration date may be omitted, provided, further, however, that such condition must be so described and inserted on the instrument" CPL 1.20[b][iv][5]).
The "Appearance Ticket" before the Court, fails to comply with section 1.20(1)(b) of the CPL.
At the very least, the Appearance Ticket does not indicate that it is "based on personal knowledge or information and belief of the police officer or other public servant who issue[d] the ticket" (CPL 1.20[1][b][i], and is not "verifie[d]... that false statements made therein are punishable as a class A misdemeanor" (CPL 1.20[1][b][ii]. Although not necessary to the Court's ultimate determination, the Court also questions whether there is compliance with CPL 1.20(1)(b)(iii) since the alleged violation is advanced in the most conclusory terms without any reference to what law, code, rule or regulation was allegedly violated.
There being no other valid accusatory instrument before or filed with the Court in connection with this matter and since it is clear from its face that the Appearance Ticket does not satisfy the requirements set forth in CPL 1.20 (1) (b), the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over the defendant (see People v Gesmundo, 67 Misc.3d 130 (A) [App Term 2020]).
While the Court does have access to a database corresponding to each citation number, nothing contained therein cures any of the noted defects.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the above traffic infraction is dismissed in all respects.