[T] People v. Ventura5/6/2004
ts would, in any event, be resolved in favor of the latter (see People v. Mannk, 31 N.Y.2d 253, 257-259, 336 N.Y.S.2d 633, 288 N.E.2d 595).
It thus follows that the charges of driving while under the influence of alcohol could not have been joined in the Village Justice Court and therefore CPL 40.40 (subd. 2) has no application (cf. People ex rel. Meyer v. Warden of Nassau County Jail, 269 N.Y.426, 199 N.E. 647; Vega v. Rubin, 73 A.D.2d 658, 423 N.Y.S.2d 193, supra; People v. Riley, 58 A.D.2d 816, 396 N.Y.S.2d 271, supra). The alternative holding of People v. Montone, 82 Misc.2d 234, 236-237, 368 N.Y.S.2d 410, supra, upon which the defendant relies, failed to recognize this jurisdictional limitation and is, therefore, disapproved.
In People v. Caltabiano, 154 Misc.2d 860, 586 N.Y.S.2d 714 (Village of Lindenhurst, Justice Court, Suff. Co., 1992), Associate Justice Perry S. Reich saw the issue somewhat differently than Justice Kunken but determined that his Village Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over an aggravated unlicensed operation in the second degree charge, a misdemeanor. Associate Justice Reich noted that the defendant would have the right to assigned counsel, if she was unable to afford an attorney and that the case should be transferred to the District Court. The Court reasoned:
"Inasmuch as this court is situated within the Second District of the Suffolk County District Court it does not possess general criminal jurisdiction over misdemeanors through the Uniform Justice Court Act (UJCA 2300 ; People v. Lindsly, 99 A.D.2d 99, 103, 472 N.Y.S.2d 115 [2d Dept.] [Titone, J.P.], lv. withdrawn, 62 N.Y.2d 987, 479 N.Y.S.2d 1041, 468 N.E.2d 309). Examination of the act creating and the act regulating the Suffolk County District Court (see, UJCA 2300 ) indicates that this court has jurisdiction of only village ordinance violations and offenses that constitute traffic infractions as defined in Vehicle & Traffic Law § 155, and, even then, does not have jurisdiction over cases where the charge involves driving while in an intoxicated condition. (People v. Lindsly, supra 99 A.D.2d at 103, 472 N.Y.S.2d 115).
"Although it is thus clear that the court does not have jurisdiction over the simplified information charging a misdemeanor, the question remains whether the court may transfer the proceeding to the District Court, or whether the information must be dismissed, and, if the transfer is ordered, whether the traffic infractions should be transferred as well. The answer is far from clear."
In one of the early cases testing the jurisdiction of Village Courts over warrants Suffolk County District Court Judge John V. Vaughn held in People v. Roberto, 64 Misc.2d 37, 314 N.Y.S.2d 226 (1970) that a Village Justice had jurisdiction to issue a search warrant with respect to a crime committed outside Village limits but within the County in which the Village was located, even though the Justice did not have trial jurisdiction. You could not have the same result in Nassau County since Village courts here do not have jurisdiction over misdemeanors. If this Court had been faced with the scenario where the applicant for the warrant alleged that there was probable cause to believe that misdemeanors were being committed, then more than likely this Court would have suppressed the evidence on the basis of it not having jurisdiction to issue such a warrant. The case has become more complex though because the Court is faced with the question of whether it may issue search warrants where building violations have been alleged. While the Court appears to have that jurisdiction and authority, the State Legislature has been less than clear about it. It is clear tha
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
|