The defendant is charged by way of a misdemeanor information charging him with one count of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree in violation of Penal Law §220.03; one count of Unlawful Possession of Marihuana in violation of Penal Law §221.05; as well as by simplified traffic information with Failure to Wear a Seat Belt in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §1229(c)(3); and one count of Failing to Stop at a Stop Sign in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §1172(a).In a pretrial omnibus motion, defendant seeks an order: 1) suppressing physical evidence on the ground that such evidence was unlawfully seized, or in the alternative, granting a Mapp/Dunaway hearing to determine the admissibility of tangible evidence; 2) suppressing certain statements allegedly made by defendant, or in the alternative, granting a Huntley hearing to determine the admissibility of such statements; 3) precluding the People from using at trial defendant’s prior criminal history or prior uncharged criminal, vicious, or immoral conduct; 4) dismissing the simplified traffic information as facially insufficient pursuant to CPL §100.40; 5) compelling the People to provide Rosario and Brady material; 6) granting him the right to make additional pretrial motions; and 7) requiring that any hearings granted in this case be held at least twenty days prior to the commencement of the trial in order to allow sufficient time for the transcription of the minutes.It is alleged that on August 8, 2018 at approximately 6:40 PM, the defendant was driving a 2018 motor vehicle southbound on Union Avenue in the City of Mount Vernon, County of Westchester when he was observed by Police Officer Burts and Police Officer Kitson of the Mount Vernon Police Department to have failed to stop at a stop sign on Union Avenue. The officers also observed that the defendant was not wearing his seat belt while operating said vehicle. The officers then effectuated a traffic stop of the defendant’s vehicle.Officer Kitson alleges that when he approached the defendant’s vehicle and requested the defendant’s license and registration, he observed the defendant drop a plastic bag by his feet. Officer Kitson removed the defendant from the vehicle and then recovered said plastic bag containing two and a half pink pills. Defendant then stated to Officer Kitson, “the pills are ecstasy pills. I’m sorry, I just smoke a little weed. That’s all.” The police then searched the defendant’s vehicle and recovered marijuana from inside the glove compartment. The defendant was placed under arrest and was transported to Mount Vernon Police Headquarters.The defendant moves for dismissal of the simplified traffic informations pursuant to CPL §170.35 and CPL §100.40 and alleges that they are facially insufficient. Defendant also argues for dismissal of the simplified traffic informations on the ground that the People failed to provide him with a supporting deposition.In the simplified traffic informations both dated August 8, 2018, a Mount Vernon police officer alleged that defendant had committed the traffic offenses of failure to wear a seat belt and failure to stop at a stop sign. The instruments allege the location of the violations as Union/Washington St. in the City of Mount Vernon and County of Westchester.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 (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]), and that it also designates the offense and contains information establishing the court’s jurisdiction (see People v. Sasson, 27 Misc 3d 134[A] [App. Term, 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2010]). Additionally, 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]).Here, the simplified traffic informations before the court, while not explicitly stating that the occurrence took place in New York State, contain factual allegations in the instruments — including the road, city and county — which clearly establish that the occurrence transpired in the State of New York (see generally Gruber v. New York City Ry. Co., 53 Misc 322, [App. Term 1907] [judicial notice may be taken of geographical facts and the location of streets]).Moreover, the accusatory instruments comply with the form required by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles for simplified traffic informations with respect to approximate size and inclusion of spaces for the operator’s name, address, date of birth, sex, license identification, vehicle description, registration information, violation description, and time and place of appearance, and the complainant’s name and affiliation (Regulations of Commissioner of Motor Vehicles [15 NYCRR] part 91).As such, this Court finds that the subject accusatory instruments are sufficient simplified traffic informations since they designate the offenses charged, substantially conform to the form prescribed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and provide the court sufficient information to establish that it has jurisdiction to hear the case (People v. Eshaghpour, 12 Misc 3d 134[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51193[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]; see CPL 100.10 [2] [a]; 100.25 [1]; 100.40 [2]).As indicated, however, a simplified information does not provide any evidentiary facts with respect to the charge, and 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). If the defendant does not make a timely request, his right to receive the supporting deposition is deemed waived (People v. Clark, 142 Misc 2d 544 [Justice Ct., Town of Arcadia, 1988]). The Court also observes that the People are not required to notify a defendant of the right to a supporting deposition.Given the spare standards applicable to simplified traffic informations, and since there is no indication that the defendant demanded a timely supporting deposition so as to require a demonstration that reasonable cause existed to charge him with the offenses alleged herein. The defendant’s motion to dismiss the simplified traffic informations for facial insufficiency, or in the alternative, for failure to provide a supporting deposition, is denied.The People consent to a Huntley/Mapp/ Dunaway hearing and, as such, defendant’s motion for said hearing is granted. The Sandoval motion is also granted on consent, and shall be renewed before the trial judge. Since the People have not indicated that they plan to introduce any evidence of defendant’s prior bad acts on their direct case, the motion for a Ventimiglia hearing is denied as premature at this time. In the event the People later indicate they plan to introduce such evidence, the defendant may renew the motion before trial.Since the People have consented to open file discovery and to providing the defendant with Brady material as it becomes available, those portions of the defendant’s motion are denied. Defendant is, however, granted leave to renew his application for Brady material before the trial Judge (see CPL §240.45; People v. White, 178 AD2d 674 [2nd Dept 1991]; People v. Goins, 73 NY2d 989 [1989]). Moreover, in the event the defendant seeks any specific item enumerated in CPL §240.20 that the People have not disclosed that is in their possession, he may renew the discovery motion.This Court recognizes that the People are under a preexisting duty to disclose any material or exculpatory evidence to an accused where there is a general request or no request, and no additional order of the court in respect thereto is necessary (People v. McCann, 115 Misc 2d 1025 [Sup. Ct. Qns. Co. 1982]; People v. Hvizd, 70 Misc 2d 654 [Westchester Co. Ct. 1972]). This duty is not limited to what tends to demonstrate the defendant’s innocence, but includes information that affects the credibility of a key prosecution witness. People v. Harris, 35AD3d 1197 (4th Dept 2006). As such, the People are reminded of their continuing obligation.Defendant’s reservation of his right to file further motions is unauthorized pursuant to CPL §255.20(3). Any other motions shall be summarily denied absent a showing of good cause.Defendant’s motion to hold pretrial hearings in this case at least twenty days prior to trial to allow for transcription of any hearing minutes is denied. Requests for hearing minutes may be expedited in the event such need arises.This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.Dated: October 11, 2018Mount Vernon, New York
