DECISION AND ORDER The defendant is charged with Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle in the First Degree (VTL §511 [3] [A] [ii]) and other related charged. On February 20, 2020, defense counsel moved for an order dismissing the indictment in the interests of justice pursuant to CPL §210.40. The People oppose the motion to dismiss. Timeliness of Motion Although CPL §255.20 provides that all motions must be filed within 45 days of arraignment, the court may consider motions outside that time period for good cause shown. Defense counsel has demonstrated that the defendant made several attempts to clear the license suspensions during the pendency of the case, and when it became clear he was not able to do so, defendant filed this motion. The court finds good cause to consider the motion. Interest of Justice Dismissal Even where there is no basis for dismissal of a criminal action as a matter of law, the Court as a matter of judicial discretion, may dismiss the action in the furtherance of justice and fairness (People v. Clayton, 41 AD2d 204, 207-208 [2d Dept 1973]; CPL §210.40[1]). The use of this remedy depends solely upon the justice to be served by dismissal, rather than the legal or factual merits of the prosecution or the guilt or innocence of the defendant (Clayton at 206; People v. Cohen, 112 Misc.2d 377, 380 [Crim. Ct. Kings County 1981]). A Clayton motion should be granted only in those unusual instances where a defendant has demonstrated by a preponderance of the credible evidence that a compelling reason exists to warrant dismissal in the interest of justice. Where the defendant does not meet this burden, the Court may summarily deny the motion (People v. Schlessel, 104 AD2d 501, 502 [2d Dept 1984]). The Court, to the extent applicable, must examine and consider individually and collectively the merits of the instant defendant’s application in light of the factors enumerated in CPL §210.40(1)(a) through (j), and weigh the respective interests of the defendant, the complainant and the community at large (People v. Rickert, 58 NY2d 122, 127 [1983]; People v. Belkota, 50 AD2d 118, 120 [4th Dept 1975]). The Court’s application of the factors set forth in CPL §210.40[1][a]-[j] is as follows: 1. Seriousness Of The Offense / Extent of Harm Caused by the Offense As defense counsel notes, this is a non-violent offense and is the defendant’s first arrest. During the pendency of the case, defendant has not been rearrested. When stopped by the police, defendant was not speeding or driving recklessly, and he cooperated fully during the course of the traffic stop. The aggrieved party here is the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”), which has not received payment from the defendant to lift the suspensions of his license. Defendant has made efforts to pay down the suspensions, but does not have the financial ability to do so. Defendant argues that there has been no harm caused by defendant here. 2. Evidence of Guilt Defendant made admissions on camera regarding his suspended license and the DMV has provided an abstract delineating the suspensions and defendant’s failure to pay fines. However, defendant argues that the failure of the arresting officers to capture the alleged obstruction of the license plate with their body cams weakens the case and provides an opening for the defense. Additionally, defendant argues that he may be successful in challenging the legality of the car stop in this case, further weakening the evidence against him. 3. History, Character and Condition Of The Defendant The defendant has completed two years of college and intended to re-enroll, however, he was stymied by financial difficulties. This case represents his only arrest. At the time this motion was filed, defendant was employed and was using a large portion of his salary to help his family, who had been evicted from their home. He lifted the suspensions on three of the tickets at issue, and attempted to lift a suspension and pay an additional ticket. Defense counsel vividly describes the byzantine requirements of various traffic courts throughout the state, and the unreasonable requirement that defendants, no matter where they live, must make personal appearances at upstate courts to negotiate dispositions. An additional unreasonable factor is that these traffic courts do not offer the option of a payment plan nor do they allow defendants additional time to pay if he fails to pay within the allotted window of time (see defendant’s motion at 6). In this case, defendant would have to buy a ticket and travel twelve hours by bus to go to the courthouses at issue. 4. Exceptionally Serious Misconduct of Law Enforcement Personnel There is no allegation of exceptionally serious law enforcement misconduct. Defendant reiterates that the police may have lacked probable cause to stop the defendant. 5. The Purpose and Effect Of Imposing A Sentence Authorized For The Offense Upon The Defendant The court agrees with the defendant that a non-criminal disposition is appropriate in this case and that such disposition should be negotiated between the parties. 6. The Impact of Dismissal on The Safety Or Welfare Of The Community Given the nature of the current allegations and the defendant’s lack of any criminal record, it is reasonable to assume that dismissal will have no negative impact on the safety and welfare of the community. 7. The Impact of Dismissal Upon The Confidence Of The Public In The Criminal Justice System The court finds that dismissal would have minimal impact on the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system. 8. Attitude of The Victim With Respect To The Motion There is no complainant in this case. 9. Any Other Relevant Factors Which Demonstrate That Conviction Would Serve No Useful Purpose Defendant has offered to complete a significant amount of community service and to participate in the DA’s Driver Improvement Program. The court finds that this case does not provide a compelling reason to warrant dismissal in the interest of justice. Unfortunately, the defendant finds himself in similar circumstances to many others, and while the court is sympathetic to his financial difficulties, his case is not particularly unique. In the current climate of criminal justice reform, this is an area ripe for evaluation. The state legislature should address the issues raised in this motion whereby a system of payment plans, partial forgiveness, universal rules for all traffic courts as well as for the payment of infractions on-line with access to state-wide traffic courts. The legislature could even require driver training programs with costs on sliding scales based on income. The state could develop a one-time “forgiveness” plan of partial payments much like is occasionally done for tax issues at the federal and state level. It may even result in a much-needed significant monetary influx as sometimes if the hole is too big one can never see the light at the end and then just buries their head. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED, that the defendant’s motion to dismiss in the interests of justice is denied. This opinion shall constitute the Decision and Order of the court. Dated: June 4, 2020
