People v Harley (Corey)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Harley (Corey) 2017 NY Slip Op 51682(U) Decided on December 12, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 12, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Ling-Cohan, Gonzalez, J.J.
570828/16

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Corey Harley, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Louis L. Nock, J.), entered November 14, 2016, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while impaired by alcohol and facilitating aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Louis L. Nock, J.), rendered November 14, 2016, affirmed.

The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. Sworn police allegations that defendant was "behind the wheel" of a vehicle, while "the key was in the ignition [and] the engine was running," satisfied the operation element of the charged Vehicle and Traffic Law offenses, both misdemeanor and traffic infractions (see People v Alamo, 34 NY2d 453, 458-459 [1974]; People v Almanzar, 113 AD3d 527 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1059 [2014]). The court thus had jurisdiction over defendant and was authorized to accept defendant's plea to the charged offense of driving while impaired (see Vehicle and traffic Law § 1192[1]), and facilitating aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511-a[1]), a traffic infraction not charged in the accusatory instrument (see People v Keizer, 100 NY2d 114, 119 [2003]).


THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur

Decision Date: December 12, 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.