The defendant stands charged with Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle in the Second Degree in violation of VTL §511.2(a)(iv), and Failing to Stop at a Steady Red Light in violation of VTL §1111(d)(1). The defendant moves for dismissal of the simplified traffic informations pursuant to CPL §170.35 and CPL §100.40 and alleges that the simplified informations together with the supporting deposition must allege every element of the crime charged and must be based on non-hearsay allegations.The simplified information alleges that on February 22, 2018, at approximately 11:00 a.m., the defendant was driving a 2017 Jeep motor vehicle on South 1st Avenue and East 3rd Street in the City of Mount Vernon, County of Westchester, State of New York. The defendant was observed by Police Officer Burts of the Mount Vernon Police Department to have failed to stop at a red light at South 1st Avenue and East 3rd Street. Officer Burts then stopped the defendant’s vehicle at 3 East 3rd Street.The defendant was placed under arrest and was issued two simplified traffic informations after an E-Justice inquiry as to the defendant’s driver’s license revealed that he had no New York State Driver’s License, and that his privilege to drive in the State of New York was suspended a total of eleven times, with ten scofflaws from eight dates.On February 22, 2018, defendant was arraigned with counsel before the Mount Vernon City Court. At arraignment, the People filed and served a supporting deposition and a copy of the defendant’s driver’s abstract from the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles and announced their readiness for trial. On March 27, 2018 the People filed an additional supporting deposition and announced readiness for trial.Defendant now moves to dismiss both of the tickets issued in this case. The defendant claims that the simplified traffic information and original supporting deposition failed to allege all the elements needed to be facially sufficient. As defined in CPL §100.10(2), a simplified traffic information is a streamlined instrument designed for the expeditious processing of traffic infractions; it is a short, written accusation, signed by a police officer and filed with a criminal court. Evidentiary facts are not required. To be facially sufficient, the instrument must also comply with the requirement of CPL 100.25.(1) that it be substantially in the form prescribed by the commissioner of motor vehicles.”A traffic action can be commenced by a simplified information, and that instrument is jurisdictionally sufficient to enable prosecution of the action, provided that it is issued in the form required by the statute and by an officer authorized to do so under the statute (CPL §§1.20(5) and 100.10(2). However, since a simplified information does not provide any evidentiary facts with respect to the charge, it does not establish reasonable cause for the charge against the defendant (see, People v. Abajian, 142 Misc 2d 250, 256 [Justice Court, Village of South Nyack, 1989]). Accordingly, the Legislature has given the defendant an absolute right to obtain a deposition from the arresting officer, setting forth sufficient facts to establish a reasonable cause for the charge, although not necessarily a prima facie case sufficient to go to trial (People v. Hohmeyer, 70 NY2d 41, 43 [1987]).If demanded in accordance with the statute, the defendant must be provided with the supporting deposition within 30 days of the demand, or else the charges against him must be dismissed (People v. Nuccio, 78 NY2d 102 [1991]). The defendant must make a timely request for the deposition, either (1) at the arraignment or (2) within 30 days of entry of [a] his plea of not guilty or [b] written notice that he is entitled to receive a supporting deposition (CPL §100.25(2). Nevertheless, where a supporting deposition is voluntarily supplied, as in this case, within the time during which a defendant, pursuant to CPL §100.25(2), may demand a supporting deposition, the voluntary providing of that supporting deposition moots the defendants right to demand one (People v. Smith, 163 Misc 2d 33, 360 [Perinton Just Ct, 1994]).With regard to defendant’s counsel’s arguments that the supporting deposition that was supplied was insufficient, there is no requirement under New York law that a simplified traffic information be accompanied by a supporting deposition at all, but if one is furnished, it should provide “reasonable cause to believe defendant committed the offense [or offenses] charged.” (People v. Key, 45 NY2d 111, 116 [1978] [where the absence of factual allegations in supporting deposition is waivable].) What is statutorily required pursuant to CPL 100.25 (2) is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged. (People v. Hohmeyer, 70 NY2d 41 [1987] [supporting deposition sufficient where officer indicates facts and circumstances by checking boxes corresponding to the appropriate factual statement].) Pursuant to CPL 100.25 (2) a valid supporting deposition is a written instrument “containing allegations of fact, based either upon personal knowledge or upon information and belief, providing reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense or offenses charged.”After a careful review of the supporting depositions (both voluntarily served, one dated February 22, 2018, and the supporting deposition served on March 21, 2018), the arresting officer alleged that he believed that defendant had reason to know that his license had been suspended based upon the officer’s E-Justice search, which indicated that defendant’s license had been suspended at the time of the instant offense on February 22, 2018 as a result of defendant’s failure to answer a summons. The arresting officer further alleged that, during the traffic stop, defendant was unable to produce a valid driver’s license. Also supporting an inference that defendant was aware of the suspension of his license was a certified copy of defendant’s driving abstract, which was attached to the supporting deposition and listed a 2017 suspension of defendant’s license. Thus, the accusatory instrument, read together with the attached documents, sufficiently alleges facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charge of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree (see CPL 100.15 [3]; Vehicle and Traffic Law §511 [2] [a]), providing reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed the offense charged (see CPL 100.40 [1] [b]), and establishing, if true, every element of the offense charged (see CPL 100.40 [1] [c]), including that defendant knew or had reason to know of the suspension of his license (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §511 [1], [2]; People v. Austin, 34 Misc 3d 136[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52402[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; People v. Crawley, 32 Misc 3d 131[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51334[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2011]; People v. Mayes, 19 Misc 3d 48 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]).Moreover, the Court finds that both supporting depositions were more than sufficient, were subscribed and verified by the police officer, were based upon his “direct observation”, and contained sufficient factual allegations to provide a reasonable likelihood that the defendant violated section 1111 (d)(1) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The supporting depositions described the defendant’s operation of the motor vehicle described in the summons, the license plate number, that the defendant was traveling eastbound on South First Avenue and East 3rd Street in the City of Mount Vernon, and that he failed to stop at a red light.The court finds that the level of detail in the supporting depositions provided “reasonable cause” to believe that the defendant was in violation of sections 511(2)(a)(iv) and 1111 (d)(1) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. All the supporting deposition need state are facts from which it can be reasonably inferred that a violation was committed.Accordingly, based upon a review of the law and the case law cited, and based upon the information set forth in the summons and the two supporting depositions supplied by the police officer to the defendant in this case, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied.This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.Dated: April 12, 2018Mount Vernon, New York
