People v. Lowry

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lowry

184 Misc. 2d 306, 708 N.Y.S.2d 811, 2000 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 191

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 10, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 184 Misc. 2d 306 (People v. Lowry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Lowry, 184 Misc. 2d 306, 708 N.Y.S.2d 811, 2000 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed on the law, appearance ticket dismissed and fine remitted.

The “information” in the case at bar is in fact an appearance ticket. An appearance ticket is not an accusatory instrument and does not give a court jurisdiction over a defendant. Thus, the failure to file with the court a proper accusatory instru[307]*307ment mandates reversal and dismissal of the appearance ticket (see, People v Cooperman, NYLJ, Jan. 17, 1989, at 26, col 4 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). Additionally, even if we consider the appearance ticket an information, it would have to be dismissed as being jurisdictionally defective as it failed to describe with any degree of specificity the facts which constituted the violation and failed to contain a statement setting forth defendant’s relationship to the property (see, CPL 100.40 [1]; 100.15; see also, People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133).

DiPaola, P. J., Floyd and Palella, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed on the law, appearance ticket dismissed and fine remitted.

The “information” in the case at bar is in fact an appearance ticket. An appearance ticket is not an accusatory instrument and does not give a court jurisdiction over a defendant. Thus, the failure to file with the court a proper accusatory instru[307]*307ment mandates reversal and dismissal of the appearance ticket (see, People v Cooperman, NYLJ, Jan. 17, 1989, at 26, col 4 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). Additionally, even if we consider the appearance ticket an information, it would have to be dismissed as being jurisdictionally defective as it failed to describe with any degree of specificity the facts which constituted the violation and failed to contain a statement setting forth defendant’s relationship to the property (see, CPL 100.40 [1]; 100.15; see also, People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133).

DiPaola, P. J., Floyd and Palella, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 Misc. 2d 306, 708 N.Y.S.2d 811, 2000 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lowry-nyappterm-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack