Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

People v. Ramirez

Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County

January 9, 2020

The People of the State of New York
v.
J Salinas Ramirez, Defendant.

          For the Defendant: Willoughby Jennet, Esq.

          For the People: ADA Clair Pelella Bronx District Attorney's Office

          JEFFREY ROSENBLUETH, J.

         MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT TWO (2), LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN INCIDENT WITHOUT REPORTING, FOR FACIAL INSUFFICIENCY: GRANTED

         Defendant is charged in the accusatory instrument with one count of Driving While Intoxicated [VTL § 1192(3)], one count of Leaving the Scene of an Incident without Reporting [VTL 600(1)(a)] and one count of Driving While Ability Impaired [VTL § 1192(1)]. The accusatory information sets forth, in pertinent part, that:

"P.O. Alex Hutt... states that on or about June 6, 2019 at approximately 9:30 P.M. in front of 3016 Webster Avenue, county of the Bronx... he observed John Estrellado on the ground next to a 2019 Indian motorcycle... [P.O. Hutt] further states that said motorcycle's exhaust pipe and frame were scratched. [P.O. Hutt] further stated that John Estrellado pointed to a green Chevrolet and stated in sum and substance HE HIT ME. [P.O. Hutt] further states that he observed said vehicle driving away from above location.
[P.O. Hutt] is further informed by Officer Michael Savastano... that he observed defendant operating a 1998 green Chevrolet van... in that he observed defendant seated behind the steering wheel, keys in the ignition, engine running, headlights on and moving along a public roadway. [P.O. Hutt] is further informed that [Officer Savastano] observed defendant driving at a rate of speed in excess of the speed limit.
[P.O. Hutt] is further informed by [Officer Savastano] that he observed the defendant to have bloodshot, watery eyes, swaying balance, and a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath. [P.O. Hutt] is further informed by [Officer Savastano] that defendant had urine on his pants. [P.O. Hutt] further states that he was present at the administration of a chemical test analysis of defendant's breath, and defendant refused to take the test."

         Defendant now moves to dismiss count two (2) of the accusatory instrument, Leaving the Scene of an Incident without Reporting [VTL 600(1)(a)] for facial insufficiency. Defendant claims that without a supporting deposition from the witness, John Estrellado, the accusatory instrument fails to establish with non-hearsay allegations the elements of the offense. Specifically, defendant claims that there are no non-hearsay allegations to support that he knew or should have known that he was in a motor vehicle accident.

         The People, in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, contend that the statement, "He hit me," made by John Estrellado as contained in the accusatory instrument is an "excited utterance" which as an exception to the hearsay rule establishes together with the other allegations in the complaint, the necessary statutory elements of the offense of Leaving the Scene of an Incident without Reporting.

         In response to the People's affirmation in opposition, defendant claims in his sur-reply that there are no facts alleged in the accusatory instrument to support the prosecutor's assertion that John Estrellado's statement, "He hit me," was an excited utterance.

         Defendant's motion to dismiss count two (2) of the accusatory instrument for facial insufficiency is decided as follows:

In order for a misdemeanor information to be sufficient on its face it must contain factual allegations of an evidentiary character demonstrating reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed the offenses charged (CPL §100.15(3); CPL§ 100.40(1)[b]; CPL §70.10). These facts must be supported by non-hearsay allegations which, if true, establish every element of the offenses charged (see CPL §100.40(1)(c); People v. Henderson, 92 N.Y.2d 677). Reasonable cause exists when "evidence or information which appears reliable discloses facts or circumstances which are collectively of such weight and persuasiveness as to convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience that it is reasonably likely that such offense was committed and that such person committed it" [CPL § 70.10 (2)]. An information which fails to satisfy these requirements is jurisdictionally defective (see CPL §170.35); People v. Alejandro, 70 N.Y.2d 133 ; People v. Dumas, 68 N.Y.2d 729).

         The People bear the burden of satisfying the facial sufficiency requirements by doing so within the "four corners" of the accusatory instrument [see People v. Jones, 9 N.Y.3d 259; People v. Thomas, 4 N.Y.3d 143; People v. Liranzo, 46 Misc.3d 140 (A)]. In evaluating whether the pleaded allegations establish reasonable cause to believe that a person has committed an offense, the court must do so in the light most favorable to the People and consider all favorable inferences drawn therein [see People v Williams, 84 N.Y.2d 925; ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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