People v Adams (Jody)

[*1] People v Adams (Jody) 2004 NY Slip Op 51253(U) Decided on October 20, 2004 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 20, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: October 20, 2004 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : McCABE, P.J., COVELLO and TANENBAUM, JJ.
2004-43 S C

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant,

against

JODY ADAMS, Respondent.

Appeal by the People from an order of the Justice Court, Town of Riverhead, Suffolk County (A. Smith, J.), entered June 9, 2003, holding that Town of Southhold Code § 92-52 was unconstitutional as applied to defendant herein and directing the Town of Southold to return defendant's vehicle, impounded by the Town, to her.

Order unanimously reversed without costs and direction to the Town of Southold to return defendant's impounded car to her vacated.

This criminal proceeding, transferred to the Town of Riverhead upon the recusal of all of Southold's Town Justices, was brought against defendant for violations of Town Code § 92-49D (barring parking on a public highway of a car which does not have a current inspection sticker or registration) and Vehicle and Traffic Law § 306 (same).
The issue of the constitutionality of Town of Southhold Code § 92-52, pursuant to which the vehicle was impounded, was not before the court below. The sole issue properly before the court was defendant's guilt or innocence of the traffic offenses with which she was charged and thus it lacked jurisdiction to direct the return of the vehicle. "It is a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that the power of a court to declare the law only arises out of, and is limited to, determining the rights of persons which are actually controverted in a particular case pending before the tribunal" (Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713 [1980]).

We do not pass upon the issue of whether the seizure of defendant's car was proper in the circumstances herein.
Decision Date: October 20, 2004