People v Garcha
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 7, 2021
Justice Court of the Town of Newburgh, Orange County
The People of the State of New York,
against
Gurwinder S. Garcha, Defendant.
Docket No. 21100207
GERSTENZANG, SILLS COHN & GERSTENZANG
Attorney for Defendant
210 Great Oaks Boulevard
Albany, NY 12203
ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
255-275 Main Street
Goshen, NY 10924
Richard Clarino, J.
Upon the Notice of Motion dated November 30, 2021, submitted by Jonathan D. Cohn, Esq., of Gerstenzang, Sills, Cohn & Gerstenzang, attorney for defendant, the Affirmation in Opposition dated December 3, 2021, submitted by Joseph J. Gruner, Esq., Assistant District Attorney of Orange County, the proceedings held in open court on November 30, 2021 and upon all the papers and proceedings previously filed and held herein, defendant's motion is decided as follows:
On October 8, 2021, defendant was arrested by New York State Trooper John T. Conroy and charged with Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated (VTL §1192.2aa), Driving While Intoxicated (VTL §1192.3), Moving from Lane Unsafely (VTL §1128[a]) and Consumption of Alcohol in Motor Vehicle (VTL §1227[1]) . On October 13, 2021, simplified traffic informations (hereinafter referred to as "UTTs") were filed with the court along with a document entitled "Supporting Deposition" and "DWI Bill of Particulars". On October 15, 2021, defendant's attorney faxed a letter to the court requesting that "a copy of the Court's file be faxed to my office". The attorney's letter also requested a supporting deposition pursuant to CPL§§100.20 & 100.25(2). On October 20, 2021, the court complied with the attorney's request and faxed to him, among other documents, the UTTs and the Supporting Deposition/DWI Bill of Particulars and also sent an Order to Trooper Conroy directing that he file and serve a supporting deposition pursuant to CPL §100.25(2). No additional supporting depositions were filed by the trooper.
On November 30, 2021, defendant and attorney Jonathan D. Cohn, Esq. appeared in court for arraignment and entered a plea of "not guilty". When the court began to address the issue of [*2]suspension pending prosecution as required by VTL §1193(2)(e)(7), Mr. Cohn orally argued and submitted the instant motion to dismiss, contending not only that defendant's driver's license may not be lawfully suspended pending prosecution (See, Pringle v Wolf, 88 NY2d 426, at page 432) but also that all charges against defendant must be dismissed because the accusatory instruments are defective on their face. The sole ground for the motion is that Trooper Conway failed to serve him with a supporting deposition and, as such, pursuant to CPL §§100.40(2) & 170.35(1)(a) the UTTs are insufficient.
It should be noted and emphasized, and there can be no dispute, that the court provided defendant's attorney with the Supporting Deposition/DWI Bill of Particulars five days after defendant's attorney requested all court documents and forty days prior to defendant's arraignment. Defendant's attorney concedes that he received the document, but nevertheless contends that the UTTs must be dismissed because the trooper did not provide him with the supporting deposition and file proof of service of it, citing, as authority, People v Wagschal, 59 Misc 3d 29 (Appellate Term, 9th & 10th Judicial Districts).
In Wagschal, after receiving a UTT for a traffic infraction, defendant mailed to the court a request for a supporting deposition. Prior to trial, he moved to dismiss and alleged that he mail to the court a request for a supporting deposition but did not receive one. Defendant's motion was denied because court records showed that a supporting deposition was filed with the court. The Appellate Term, however, determined that there was no proof of service filed to show that the supporting deposition was served on defendant and held "under the particular circumstances of this case" the charge should have been dismissed (emphasis added).
The facts and circumstances of this case are clearly distinguishable from those in Wagschal. In Wagschal, defendant alleged that he was not provided with a supporting deposition. Here, defendant's attorney concedes that he was provided with the supporting deposition.
Since the supporting deposition was timely provided to defendant's attorney, defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL §170.35(1) is denied. To hold otherwise would favor form over substance. Defendant's attorney received the supporting deposition to which his client was entitled and neither defendant nor his attorney suffered prejudice because it was received from the court rather than from the trooper.
Assuming, arguendo, that defendant is correct and CPL §100.25(2) requires the UTTs to be dismissed, the court finds that the filed document labeled "Supporting Deposition DWI Bill of Particulars", though not identified as such, is a legally sufficient information which conforms to and satisfies the requirements of CPL §§ 100.15 & 100.40. Specifically, the document specifies the name of the court and the title of the action. It contains an accusatory part, which designates the offenses charged, and a factual part, which contains non-hearsay facts of an evidentiary nature supporting or tending to support every element of the offenses charged and defendant's commission thereof. The document recites that the factual part is based on complainant's personal knowledge and it is subscribed and verified by the complainant.
The court finds that the Supporting Deposition/DWI Bill of Particulars, standing alone, is a valid information which substantially conforms with the requirements of CPL §100.15 and, as such, is sufficient on its face (See, CPL §100.40[1]). It serves as the basis both for the commencement of the criminal action against defendant and the prosecution of it (See, CPL [*3]§100.10[1]).
Based on the foregoing defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated (VTL §1192.2aa) and Driving While Intoxicated (VTL §1192.3) is denied. However, defendant's motion pursuant to CPL §100.25(2) to dismiss the simplified traffic informations charging a violation of VTL §1227(1) and VTL §1128(a) is granted.
Defendant is directed to appear with counsel on December 14, 2021 at 10:00 A.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard for a continuation of the arraignment to address, inter. alia., suspension pending prosecution.
The aforesaid constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.
Dated: December 7, 2021
Newburgh, New York
s/______________________________________
HON. RICHARD CLARINO
Town Justice, Town of Newburgh
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.
