Judge Kim Petersen

Read Full-Text Decision

King, charged with criminal contempt, among other things, moved for dismissal arguing prosecutors’ conversion of the contempt charge via a certified Department of Motor Vehicle abstract was insufficient, rendering the accusatory instrument defective. A superseding information alleged King violated a Criminal Court order of protection—directing him to stay away from complainant and her home—by being present inside her residence. King argues the complaint alleged he was inside the subject address but failed to make specific, non-hearsay evidentiary allegations that complainant resided there at the time the alleged offense occurred. He claimed the DMV abstract of complainant’s driving record submitted by prosecutors as proof the address was complainant’s residence was hearsay and inadmissible, rendering the complaint facially insufficient. The court agreed the abstract was hearsay but found it was properly authenticated–thus, may be offered as evidence under CPLR 4520—the public officer’s records exception to hearsay. As such, the abstract was admissible and properly converted the complaint to an information, concluding the accusatory instrument was facially sufficient as to the criminal contempt charge. Dismissal was denied.