Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People of the State of New York v. Shlomo Michtavy

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


July 27, 2011

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
RESPONDENT,
v.
SHLOMO MICHTAVY,
APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Mary R. O'Donoghue, J.), rendered March 31, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree.

People v Michtavy (Shlomo)

Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 27, 2011

PRESENT:PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and STEINHARDT, JJ

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Upon his plea of guilty, defendant was convicted of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [1]).

The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the information set forth sufficient factual allegations of the alleged offense (CPL 100.40 [1]). Contrary to defendant's contention, the information did not need to establish that defendant knew how the Department of Motor Vehicles would effectuate the suspension of his license by computer, only that defendant "knew or had reason to know" that his license was suspended at the time of the incident (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [1]). The supporting deposition stated that defendant was aware that he had received a prior traffic summons, that he knew that he had failed to answer that traffic summons, and that all such summonses have printed on them that "if you do not answer this ticket by mail within fifteen (15) days, your license will be suspended" (emphasis added). Since defendant knew that he did not answer the earlier traffic summons, he "had reason to know" that his license was suspended at the time of the incident involved herein. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.

Decision Date:July 27, 2011

20110727

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.