Judge David Frey

Read Full-Text Decision

Lovette, charged with aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second and third degree sought dismissal for lack of facial sufficiency. In a misdemeanor complaint, a police officer stated he observed Lovette operating a car on a public highway and determined via a computer check Lovette’s license was revoked for refusing to submit to a chemical test. Prosecutors converted the complaint to an information when they filed the arresting officer’s corroborating affidavit, NYS DMV abstract and proof of mailing, yet, Lovette claimed the abstract and mailing were defective. But, the court found Lovette was incorrect finding reliance on People v. Smith, 258 Ad2d 245 was misplaced as it was issued in 1999 and DMV established a new procedure to authenticate abstracts, correcting deficiencies raised in Smith. Thus, the abstract converted the allegation Lovette’s license was revoked and not reinstated to non-hearsay. Also, contrary to Lovette’s attack on the proof of mailing, relying on People v. Valerio, 42 NYS3d 620, prosecutor’s proof of mailing, generated by the DMV, comported with the requirements under Vehicle & Traffic Law §214. Thus, the court disagreed with Valerio, and found the complaint was converted to an information, denying dismissal.

Judge David Frey

Read Full-Text Decision

Lovette, charged with aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second and third degree sought dismissal for lack of facial sufficiency. In a misdemeanor complaint, a police officer stated he observed Lovette operating a car on a public highway and determined via a computer check Lovette’s license was revoked for refusing to submit to a chemical test. Prosecutors converted the complaint to an information when they filed the arresting officer’s corroborating affidavit, NYS DMV abstract and proof of mailing, yet, Lovette claimed the abstract and mailing were defective. But, the court found Lovette was incorrect finding reliance on People v. Smith , 258 Ad2d 245 was misplaced as it was issued in 1999 and DMV established a new procedure to authenticate abstracts, correcting deficiencies raised in Smith . Thus, the abstract converted the allegation Lovette’s license was revoked and not reinstated to non-hearsay. Also, contrary to Lovette’s attack on the proof of mailing, relying on People v. Valerio , 42 NYS3d 620 , prosecutor’s proof of mailing, generated by the DMV, comported with the requirements under Vehicle & Traffic Law §214. Thus, the court disagreed with Valerio, and found the complaint was converted to an information, denying dismissal.