People v. Berrus

802 N.E.2d 1089, 1 N.Y.3d 535, 770 N.Y.S.2d 691, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 3981
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 25, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 802 N.E.2d 1089 (People v. Berrus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Berrus, 802 N.E.2d 1089, 1 N.Y.3d 535, 770 N.Y.S.2d 691, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 3981 (N.Y. 2003).

Opinion

*536 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of County Court should be reversed and the simplified traffic information reinstated.

Defendant received a simplified traffic information for failing to have lights on the back of a tractor that was pulling a manure spreader, around 5:00 p.m. in the Town of Denmark, County of Lewis, on December 5, 2001. Relying upon advice from the Court Administration Resource Center, the Town Justice concluded, erroneously, that lights were not required because a tractor is not a motor vehicle within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 375 and 376. The Town Justice dismissed the action in the interest of justice, and County Court affirmed.

In dismissing the case, the Town Justice referred to a provision of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 376 that was repealed by Laws of 1994, chapter 654, § 5, effective January 29, 1995, a provision referring to registered farm vehicles and requiring them to be equipped in accordance with regulations issued by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. By contrast, section 376 (1) (a) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which was in effect on the date the ticket was issued, requires lights on vehicles and thus includes tractors.

Moreover, when an action is dismissed in the interest of justice pursuant to CPL 170.40, the judge must consider, “individually and collectively,” the specific factors listed and must state reasons on the record (see also CPL 210.40). While dismissal may have been warranted, the record does not indicate that the Town Justice took into consideration the factors enumerated in CPL 170.40. We, therefore, reverse the order of County Court and reinstate the simplified traffic information.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Martinez (Nicholas)
185 N.Y.S.3d 492 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
The People v. Daria N. Epakchi
New York Court of Appeals, 2021
People v. Dardashtian (Tamir)
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
People v. Emanuel (Abraham)
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
People v. Days
53 Misc. 3d 181 (Westchester County Court, 2016)
People v. LaFont
43 Misc. 3d 384 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 2014)
People v. Jenkins
898 N.E.2d 553 (New York Court of Appeals, 2008)
People v. Morisseau
19 Misc. 3d 59 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In THE MATTER OF HABERMAN v. City of Long Beach
807 N.E.2d 282 (New York Court of Appeals, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
802 N.E.2d 1089, 1 N.Y.3d 535, 770 N.Y.S.2d 691, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 3981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-berrus-ny-2003.