People v Fraiser (Kourtney)
Annotate this CaseDecided on January 3, 2008
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., TANENBAUM and SCHEINKMAN, JJ
2006-1778 OR CR.
The People of the State of New York, Appellant,
against
Kourtney A. Fraiser, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Justice Court of the Town of Wallkill, Orange County (Ray
Shoemaker, J.), entered September 8, 2006. The order dismissed the simplified traffic
information.
Order reversed on the law, simplified traffic information reinstated and matter remanded to the court below for all further proceedings.
In this prosecution based on a simplified traffic information, defendant appeared for trial on
September 8, 2006. The court dismissed the simplified traffic information on the ground that the
People failed to prosecute the matter. The trial court has no statutory or inherent authority to
dismiss a criminal proceeding for failure to prosecute
(see People v Douglass, 60 NY2d 194, 206 [1983]; People v Tartaglione, 5
Misc 3d 126[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51190[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). We further
note that the District Attorney may delegate the prosecution of petty crimes and offenses to
police officers (see People v Soddano, 86 NY2d 727 [1995]; People v Garcha, 10
Misc 3d 136[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 52130[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). Therefore, the
order dismissing the simplified traffic information is reversed and said accusatory instrument is
reinstated.
Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 3, 2008
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.