From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Valdez

Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 22, 2023
2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 51259 (N.Y. App. Term 2023)

Opinion

No. 570428/19

11-22-2023

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George Valdez, Defendant-Appellant.


Unpublished Opinion

PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Tisch, J.

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Sheryl L. Parker, J.H.O.), rendered April 5, 2019, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Judgment of conviction (Sheryl L. Parker, J.H.O.), rendered April 5, 2019, affirmed.

Since defendant waived the right to prosecution by information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be assessed under the standard required of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v Dumay, 23 N.Y.3d 518 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of aggravated unlicensed driving in the third degree (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[1][a]). The instrument, including the certified abstract of defendant's driving record, recited, inter alia, that defendant was observed operating a motor vehicle, that a computer check run by the officer of the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles showed that defendant's driver's license "was suspended three or more times on at least three separate dates and has not been reinstated" based on defendant's "failure to answer a New York summons," and that all such summonses have printed on them "'[i]f you do not answer this ticket by mail within fifteen (15) days your license will be suspended,' [and that] the suspension occurs automatically (by computer) within four weeks of the defendant's failure to answer." These factual allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish reasonable cause to believe that defendant knew, or had reason to know, that his license was suspended (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[1][a]; People v Mordle, 77 Misc.3d 141 [A], 2023 NY Slip Op 50114[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 935 [2023]; People v Compres, 59 Misc.3d 140 [A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50617[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1115 [2018]).


Summaries of

People v. Valdez

Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 22, 2023
2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 51259 (N.Y. App. Term 2023)
Case details for

People v. Valdez

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George Valdez…

Court:Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 22, 2023

Citations

2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 51259 (N.Y. App. Term 2023)