People v Bollag (Alain)

[*1] People v Bollag (Alain) 2014 NY Slip Op 50407(U) Decided on March 10, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 10, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., IANNACCI and TOLBERT, JJ
2012-1341 W CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Alain J. Bollag, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Mamaroneck, Westchester County (Christie L. Derrico, J.), rendered April 30, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, convicted defendant of disobeying a traffic control device.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, the simplified traffic information is dismissed, and the surcharge of $85, if paid, is remitted.

Defendant was charged in a simplified traffic information with disobeying a traffic control device (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1110) and, after a nonjury trial, was convicted of the charged offense.

A simplified traffic information is sufficient on its face when it substantially conforms to the form prescribed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (CPL 100.25, 100.40 [2]; see People v Ferro, 22 Misc 3d 7 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]; People v Eshaghpour, 12 Misc 3d 134 [A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51193[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]). Upon a timely request, a complainant police officer must file a supporting deposition and, to be considered sufficient, the supporting deposition in a traffic case initiated by a simplified traffic information must set forth facts which provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged (CPL 100.25 [2]). The failure to file such a supporting deposition renders the simplified traffic information insufficient on its face (CPL 100.40 [2]). In the case at bar, the simplified traffic information and supporting deposition fail to set forth any facts from which it could reasonably be inferred that defendant failed to obey a specific sign, signal, marking, or device (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 153), since the complaining officer neither identified the type of traffic control device defendant failed to obey nor detailed defendant's actions from which it could be reasonably inferred that he had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1110. The supporting deposition set forth little more than the conclusory assertion that defendant had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1110 by his failure to obey an unspecified traffic control device. In view of the foregoing, the simplified traffic information is jurisdictionally defective.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed, the simplified traffic information is dismissed, and the surcharge of $85, if paid, is remitted.

Nicolai, P.J., Iannacci and Tolbert, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 10, 2014