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, Respondent v. Albert Tytutin

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts


March 25, 2013

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, --
v.
ALBERT TYTUTIN, APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Joanne Quinones, J.), rendered February 1, 2011.

People v Tytutin (Albert)

Decided on March 25, 2013

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

PRESENT: RIOS, J.P., PESCE and ALIOTTA, JJ

The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was charged in an accusatory instrument with aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [2]). At his arraignment, defendant waived prosecution by information and pleaded guilty to aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [1] [a]). On appeal, defendant contends that the accusatory instrument is a complaint and is jurisdictionally defective since it fails to allege facts establishing that he knew, or should have known, that his license had been suspended.

Although the accusatory instrument is denominated a "complaint/information," we find that it is, in fact, a sufficient simplified traffic information since it designates the offense charged, substantially conforms to the form prescribed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (see CPL 100.40 [2]; Regulations of Commissioner of Motor Vehicles [15 NYCRR] § 91) and provides the court with sufficient information to establish that it has jurisdiction to hear the case (see People v Fernandez, 20 NY3d 44 [2012], affg 31 Misc 3d 144[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50932[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; People v Ferro, 22 Misc 3d 7 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rios, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: March 25, 2013

20130325

© 1992-2013 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.