Judge Kluewer
Click here to see Judicial Profile
http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=118374
DEFENDANT moved for dismissal of the accusatory instruments as defective. He was accused in three traffic informations of aggravated unlicensed operation of a vehicle, among other things. Defendant was scheduled to appear to respond on June 21, 1999, but failed to do so. Nearly 10 years later, defendant appeared in arraignment, demanding supporting depositions for each information. He argued the time to demand the depositions did not begin to run until he first appeared in court, alleging his demand was timely. The court disagreed. It found defendant’s argument that the waiver of his right to request a supporting deposition arising from his failure to appear could not be considered voluntary as that same failure prevented him from being advised of the importance of a supporting deposition. The court concluded defendant’s “tepid” allegation that his appearance ticket, which he did not present, did not contain the requisite notice, was inadequate to establish that the issuing officer handed defendant a defective ticket. Thus, as defendant’s demand for supporting depositions was untimely, the informations were not rendered defective and the motion to dismiss was denied.
