People v Passalacqua (Angelo)

[*1] People v Passalacqua (Angelo) 2005 NYSlipOp 50554(U) Decided on April 15, 2005 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 15, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: McCABE, P.J., COVELLO and TANENBAUM, JJ.
2003-1387 S CR

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

ANGELO PASSALACQUA AND SHERRIE PASSALACQUA, Appellants.

Appeal by defendant Angelo Passalacqua from amended judgments of the Justice Court, Village of Patchogue, Suffolk County (C. McGuire, J.), rendered November 5, 2003, convicting him of violating sections 55-17 (B), 55-17 (C), 55-43 (F) and 55-43 (N) of the Code of the Village of Patchogue, and imposing sentences.

Appeal by defendant Sherrie Passalacqua from amended judgments of the Justice Court, Village of Patchogue, Suffolk County (C. McGuire, J.), rendered November 5, 2003, convicting her of violating sections 55-18 (C ), 55-19 (C ) and 55-42.1 of the Code of the Village of Patchogue, and imposing sentences. [*2]

Amended judgments of conviction as to defendant Angelo Passalacqua reversed on the law, appearance tickets/simplified informations dismissed and fines, if paid, remitted.

Amended judgments of conviction as to defendant Sherrie Passalacqua reversed on the law, appearance tickets/simplified informations dismissed and fines, if paid, remitted.

An appearance ticket is not an accusatory instrument and does not give the court jurisdiction over the defendant. Section 150.50 of the Criminal Procedure Law requires that an appearance ticket be succeeded by a legally sufficient information or misdemeanor complaint. Thus, the failure to file with the court proper accusatory instruments mandates reversal and dismissal of the appearance tickets (see People v Cooperman and O'Dell, NYLJ, Jan. 17, 1989 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). Moreover, even if the instruments are deemed simplified informations, they are insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court. A simplified information is only permitted to charge violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, Parks and Recreation Law, [*3]
Navigation Law and the Environmental Conservation Law (CPL 1.20 [5]; 100.10 [2]; 100.25). Accordingly, simplified informations cannot be used to charge violations of a municipal ordinance.

We note that the appeals were consolidated by order of this court dated July 16, 2004.

Covello and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.

McCabe, P.J., taking no part.
Decision Date: April 15, 2005