People v Foster (Shanice)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Foster (Shanice) 2017 NY Slip Op 51272(U) Decided on September 28, 2017 Appellate Term, First 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 28, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Gonzalez, JJ.
570766/15

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Shanice Foster, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered July 1, 2015, convicting her, upon a plea of guilty, of unlicensed driving, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered July 1, 2015, affirmed.

The misdemeanor information charging defendant with unlicensed driving (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509[1]) was not jurisdictionally defective. Sworn police allegations that at a specified time and street location, defendant was observed operating a motor vehicle, and that a computer check run by the officer of the records of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles revealed that defendant's license was suspended for failure to answer a New York summons, were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish the elements of the offense, including that defendant was not "duly licensed" to operate the vehicle she was driving (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509[1]; see also People v Chatelain, 65 AD3d 930 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 886 [2010]; People v Pate, 52 AD3d 1118 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 740 [2008]). No additional evidentiary details were required for the People's pleading to provide "adequate notice to enable defendant to prepare a defense and invoke h[er] protection against double jeopardy" (People v Kasse, 22 NY3d 1142, 1143 [2014]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 28, 2017

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.