[T] People v. Ventura5/6/2004
ements of the two offenses are different and the same evidence is not required to prove each offense.
"In the justice court, Village of Lindenhurst, Associate Justice Perry S. Reich held, in People v. Caltabiano, supra that the court does not possess general criminal jurisdiction over misdemeanors through the Uniform Justice Court Act (UJCA 2300 ) and relies on the dicta in People v. Lindsly, supra. However, this court's decision is based upon an analysis of the UJCA and UDCA as discussed above, and this court respectfully disagrees with the Caltabiano determination.
"This Court finds that, in the absence of the type of express language found in Article XXIV of the UDCA - - Nassau County, the legislative intent was not to abrogate the jurisdiction of the village courts of the five western towns of Suffolk County with regard to Penal Law misdemeanor and driving while intoxicated cases.
"Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss the pending accusatory instruments is denied."
In People v. Lindsly, 99 A.D.2d 99, 472 N.Y.S.2d 115 (1984) the Appellate Division, Second Department determined that a defendant's plea of guilty in Village Justice Court to leaving the scene of an accident did not bar the prosecutor in County Court from proceeding against the defendant with respect to two felony indictment counts. In an opinion by Justice Titone (later a distinguished member of our New York Court of Appeals), relied upon by Justice Kunken in the Beach case, the Court held:
"To be sure, if the charges were filed in the same court, the two initial accusatory instruments would have been joinable (People v. Easterling, 59 A.D.2d 537, 397 N.Y.S.2d 125, supra; Serignese v. Henry, 101 misc.2d 424 N.Y.S.2d 810, supra). And, as Easterling holds, the subsequent filing of an indictment does not change this result. But here the first accusatory instrument was filed in the Justice Court of the Village of Babylon. Because that court was situated within a district of the Suffolk County District Court, it did not obtain general criminal jurisdiction over misdemeanors through the Uniform Justice Court Act (see UJCA § 2300, subd. , par. 2). "The UJCA confers no jurisdiction on such village courts. Whatever jurisdiction they have, civil or criminal, must be found in such laws, if any, as are specifically applicable to them" (Siegel, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons.Laws of N.Y. Book 29A, Part 2, UJCA, § 2300, 1983-1984 Pocket Part, p. 246; see, also, 1965 Opns Atty Gen 94).
Examination of "the act creating" the Suffolk County District Court (see UJCA, § 2300, subd. , par. 2) reveals that the Legislature, as it had done previously in creating the Nassau County District Court (L.1936, ch. 879), permitted village courts in the area to retain jurisdiction only of village ordinance violations and Vehicle and Traffic Law offenses committed within village limits "except in cases in which the charge is operating a motor vehicle or motor cycle in an intoxicated condition" (L.1962, ch. 811). The law "regulating the administration" of the Suffolk County District Court (see UJCA § 2300, subd. , par. 2), the Uniform District Court Act does not confer any additional criminal jurisdiction on village courts (UDCA, § 2101; § 2101, subd. ; § 2300).[FN*]
FN* The general provisions contained in the CPL (CPL 10.10, subd. 3, par, , § 10.30) do not, of course, override the specific limitations set forth in the Uniform Court Acts, as the Uniform Justice Court Act (§ 102) and the Uniform District Court Act (§ 102) expressly govern the "jurisdiction of and practice and procedure" in such courts (emphasis supplied). Any conflict between the CPL and the Uniform Court Ac
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 New York DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|