People v. Fabian (Ramon)

69 Misc. 3d 130(A), 2020 NY Slip Op 51159(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: October 5, 2020
• Docket: 570262/16
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

People v Fabian (2020 NY Slip Op 51159(U)) [*1]

People v Fabian (Ramon)

2020 NY Slip Op 51159(U) [69 Misc 3d 130(A)]

Decided on October 5, 2020

Appellate Term, First 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 5, 2020

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Cooper, Higgitt, JJ.
570262/16

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Ramon Fabian, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from the judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Sheryl L. Parker, J.H.O.), rendered March 18, 2016, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Sheryl L. Parker, J.H.O.), rendered March 18, 2016, affirmed.

The information charging aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[1][a]) was jurisdictionally valid because it contained "nonconclusory factual allegations that, if assumed to be true, address[ed] each element of the crime charged, thereby affording reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed that offense" (People v Matthew P., 26 NY3d 332, 335-336 [2015], quoting People v Jackson, 18 NY3d 738, 741 [2012]; see People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 228-229 [2009]).

The information, including the certified abstract of defendant's driving record and certified proofs of mailing of notices of suspension of defendant's driver's license, alleged that at a specified date, time and location, defendant was operating a motor vehicle; that a computer check of the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles revealed that his license was suspended "for failure to answer a New York State summons three times on three or more dates," that "all such summonses have printed on them, '[i]f you do not answer this ticket by mail within fifteen days your license will be suspended' [and that] the suspension occurs automatically (by computer) within four weeks of the defendant's failure to answer." These factual allegations were sufficient to establish that defendant was operating a motor vehicle while knowing or having reason to know that his license had been suspended or revoked (see People v Gerado, 55 Misc 3d 127[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50344[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1079 [2017]; People v Thompson, 52 Misc 3d 145[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51287[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1076 [2016])

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 5, 2020