SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS Appellate Term, Second Department
January 20, 2012
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Old Westbury, Nassau County (Edward Joachim, J.), rendered June 30, 2010.
People v Mayeri (Harold)
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 20, 2012
PRESENT: MOLIA, J.P., NICOLAI and IANNACCI, JJ
The judgment convicted defendant, after a non-jury trial, of failing to signal when changing lanes.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Defendant was charged in a simplified traffic information with failing to signal when changing lanes (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [d]). At a non-jury trial, the complaining officer testified that, at the scene of the offense, he had incorrectly designated the location of the charged offense on the uniform traffic ticket and simplified traffic information but then immediately corrected the mistakes, and initialed them, before issuing defendant the uniform traffic ticket. The Justice Court admitted the officer's copy of the uniform traffic ticket into evidence, as a past recollection recorded, without any objection from defendant. Thereafter, the Justice Court convicted defendant of the charged offense.
On appeal, defendant's contention that the simplified traffic information is facially insufficient because the officer incorrectly designated the location of the charged offense when he initially drafted the simplified traffic information is unpreserved for appellate review as the defect, if any, is non-jurisdictional (see People v Love, 306 NY 18, 23-25 ). In any event, the officer's mistake was a scrivener's error, which he immediately corrected. Thus, the simplified traffic information is facially adequate because it provided defendant with "notice sufficient to prepare a defense" and was "adequately detailed to prevent . . . defendant from being tried twice for the same offense" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360  [internal citations omitted]; see People v Love, 306 NY at 23; People v Norman, 1 Misc 3d 127[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51537[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2003]).
Defendant's objection to the scope of the officer's testimony is, likewise, unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Brabant, 61 AD3d 1014, 1016 ). In any event, the Justice Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it permitted the officer to testify about underlying facts that were not specified in the simplified traffic information, such as the location of defendant's vehicle at the time the officer pulled defendant over. Under the doctrine of past recollection recorded, the copy of the uniform traffic ticket admitted at trial did not serve as independent evidence of the facts contained therein, but merely refreshed the officer's recollection as to certain of the events underlying the charged offense (see People v Taylor, 80 NY2d 1, 8-9 ; People v Klepper, 25 NY2d 46, 47 ).
Defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Molia, J.P., Nicolai and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 20, 2012
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.