People v. Rivera (Chassan)

70 Misc. 3d 136(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50042(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: January 22, 2021
• Docket: 19-385
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

People v Rivera (2021 NY Slip Op 50042(U)) [*1]

People v Rivera (Chassan)

2021 NY Slip Op 50042(U) [70 Misc 3d 136(A)]

Decided on January 22, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 22, 2021

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Higgitt, McShan JJ.
19-385

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Chassan Rivera, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Michael Gaffey, J.), rendered March 12, 2019, upon his plea of guilty, convicting him of unlicensed driving, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Michael Gaffey, J.), rendered March 12, 2019, affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlicensed driving (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509[1]) in satisfaction of an accusatory instrument charging both unlicensed driving and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[1][a]). With respect to the offense to which he pleaded guilty, the information was jurisdictionally valid because it set forth nonhearsay allegations which, "establish, if true, every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof" (CPL 100.40[1][c]; see People v Middleton, 35 NY3d 952, 954 [2020]; People v Wheeler, 34 NY3d 1134, 1135 [2020]). The instrument recited that defendant was observed operating a motor vehicle, and that a computer check run by the arresting officer of the records of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles revealed that defendant's license was revoked, based upon three speeding or misdemeanor convictions within an 18-month period, and had not been reinstated. These allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish that defendant was not "duly licensed" to operate the vehicle he was driving (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509[1]; see People v Foster, 57 Misc 3d 136[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51272[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1060 [2017]). Defendant's knowledge that he was not duly licensed is not an element of the offense of unlicensed driving, and need not be pleaded (see People v Stoute, 59 Misc 3d 126[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50338[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1122 [2018]; see also People v Pacer, 6 NY3d 504, 513 [2006]).

Since the information was jurisdictionally valid with respect to the offense to which defendant pleaded guilty, he is not aggrieved by any alleged defects in the other charged offense (see People v Ruiz, 146 AD3d 417 [2017], lv denied 28 NY3d 1188 [2017]; People v Valentin, 66 Misc 3d 136[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50044[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d [*2]945 [2020]). All concur

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court
Decision Date: January 22, 2021