People v Celauro (Sal)

[*1] People v Celauro (Sal) 2009 NY Slip Op 52015(U) [25 Misc 3d 126(A)] Decided on June 29, 2009 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 29, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., TANENBAUM and NICOLAI, JJ
2008-1286 N CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Sal Celauro, Jr., Appellant.

Appeal from judgments of the District Court of Nassau County, Nassau County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (Salvatore Nicosia, J.H.O.), rendered May 30, 2008. The judgments convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of operating a motor vehicle without liability insurance, operating a motor vehicle without being duly licensed and operating a motor vehicle while unrestrained by a safety belt.

Judgments of conviction affirmed.

Defendant was convicted after trial before the Nassau County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency upon evidence establishing that he operated a motor vehicle without insurance, a driver's license and a fastened seat belt (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 319 [1]; 509, 1229-c [3]). On appeal, he raises the issue of whether there was subject matter jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals has held that the Nassau County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency is a branch of the Nassau County District Court, which court has jurisdiction to adjudicate simplified traffic informations (Matter of Dolce v Nassau County Traffic & Parking Violations Agency, 7 NY3d 492, 495 [2006]; see People v Stoliarov, 21 Misc 3d 135[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52209[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]). Thus, defendant's assertion that the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the simplified traffic informations is without merit.

The other issues raised herein are either similarly without merit or unpreserved for appellate review.

Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Nicolai, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 29, 2009