People v Stephens

[*1] People v Stephens 2016 NY Slip Op 50113(U) Decided on February 3, 2016 District Court Of Suffolk County, First District Wilutis, J. 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 3, 2016
District Court of Suffolk County, First District

People of the State of New York,

against

Bryant Stephens, Defendant



2015SU010461



For the Defendant:

Wayne J. Donovan

Lindenhurst, New York

For the People:

A.D.A. Laura T. Panetta

for Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney of the County of Suffolk
Karen M. Wilutis, J.

The defendant is charged with driving while intoxicated (V§TL §1192(3)) and failure to maintain lane (V & TL §1128(a)) and moves for omnibus relief. The Court will address the defendant's demands ad seriatim.

The defendant initially moves to dismiss count one (V & TL §1192(3)) for insufficiency. Said motion is denied. It is the opinion of this Court that the information is sufficient within the meaning of CPL 100.40 and 100.15. The information is stated to be based upon the police officer complainant's personal knowledge. The factual allegations state that the defendant operated a black 2013 Cadillac on the eastbound service road of Sunrise Highway in Bay Shore, New York and that he failed to maintain his lane by crossing into the right hand lane from the left hand lane several times. The information also enumerates several indicia of intoxication. It has been held that an accusatory instrument stated to be based upon a complainant police officer's personal knowledge must be so construed and that such allegations [*2]meet the non-hearsay standards for an information (See People v. Milowski, 2011 NY Slip Op 52408(U); People v. Netusil, 2011 NY Slip Op 42410(U) [App Term, 2nd Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists, December 27, 2011]). The requirements for pretrial sufficiency of an information differ from the burden of proof required at trial. (See People v. Henderson, 92 NY2d 677 [1999]).

The defendant next moves to dismiss the simplified information charging a violation of V & TL §1128(a) under count two, arguing that the supporting deposition received in response to demand is insufficient. It is the opinion of this Court that the factual allegations set forth in the supporting deposition fail to provide the requisite reasonable cause (CPL 100.25(2)), as there is provided no factual allegation that the defendant was not driving entirely within a single lane or that the defendant's movements were not made with safety (see V & TL §1128(a)). As such, the motion to dismiss is granted. Upon issuance of the accompanying order, the Court shall furnish the defendant with notice pursuant to 22 NYCRR §200.40.

a, c, d)Suppression -

Motions granted to the extent that Mapp/Dunaway/probable cause, Huntley and refusal hearings shall be held immediately prior to trial.

b)Preclusion of non-noticed statements -

The defendant's motion to preclude the People from introducing any statement(s)

not noticed pursuant to CPL 710.30 is granted to the extent that the People are precluded from introducing at trial any statement(s) not noticed pursuant to CPL 710.30, provided that such statement(s), if any, are encompassed by the provisions of said statute.

e)Sandoval relief -

Motion granted to the extent that a hearing shall be held immediately prior to trial.

f)Discovery & inspection/Brady material/bill of particulars -

Motions granted to the extent that the People shall provide a copy of the Prisoner Activity Log. The defendant's discovery motions are otherwise denied, as the People have responded, aver that they are not currently in possession of any further discoverable material and acknowledge their continuing discovery obligations pursuant to CPL Article 240 and Brady v. Maryland (373 US 83 [1963]). Thus, no further order of the Court is necessary or warranted at this time. The defendant's motion for a bill of particulars is denied, as the information is adequately set out on the face of the accusatory instrument. Further information would not be within the scope of a bill of particulars. (See CPL 200.95).

The defendant's motion for leave to make further motions is denied as improper. Should such relief be deemed necessary, the defendant should so move the Court at that time.

______________________________

J.D.C.