People v. Ramirez (Juan)
This text of 70 Misc. 3d 139(A) (People v. Ramirez (Juan)) 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.
Opinion
People v Ramirez (2021 NY Slip Op 50104(U)) [*1]
| People v Ramirez (Juan) |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 50104(U) [70 Misc 3d 139(A)] |
| Decided on February 11, 2021 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 11, 2021
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Higgitt, Brigantti, JJ.
16-341
against
Juan Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), rendered February 29, 2016, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of reckless driving, and imposing sentence.
Per Curiam.
Judgment of conviction (Lyle E. Frank, J.), rendered February 29, 2016, affirmed.
Since defendant waived prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [2014]). So viewed, the complaint charging reckless driving (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212) was jurisdictionally valid. The instrument recited that a police officer observed defendant, at a specified location at 4:20 a.m., drive his vehicle through two red lights while talking on a cell phone and while there were "numerous other vehicles on the road." These allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes, since they provided reasonable cause to believe that defendant "unreasonably endanger[ed] users of the public highway" (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212; see People v Grogan, 260 NY 138, 144 [1932]; People v Goldblatt, 98 AD3d 817 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 932 [2012]; People v Medard, 63 Misc 3d 165[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50943[U][App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 934 [2019]), and provided sufficient detail to enable defendant to prepare a defense and invoke his protection against double jeopardy (see People v Kasse, 22 NY3d 1142, 1143 [2014]).
All concur.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Clerk of the Court
Decision Date: February 11, 2021
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
70 Misc. 3d 139(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50104(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ramirez-juan-nyappterm-2021.