People v. Sanchez (Steven)

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sanchez (Steven)

71 Misc. 3d 141(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50557(U)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 17, 2021

Docket570759/16

StatusUnpublished

This text of 71 Misc. 3d 141(A) (People v. Sanchez (Steven)) 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. Sanchez (Steven), 71 Misc. 3d 141(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50557(U) (N.Y. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

People v Sanchez (2021 NY Slip Op 50557(U)) [*1]

People v Sanchez (Steven)

2021 NY Slip Op 50557(U) [71 Misc 3d 141(A)]

Decided on June 17, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 17, 2021

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McShan, J.P., Brigantti, Hagler, JJ.
570759/16

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Steven Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Kevin McGrath, J.), rendered October 18, 2016, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Kevin McGrath, J.), rendered October 18, 2016, affirmed.

Since defendant waived the right to be prosecuted by information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be assessed under the standard required of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of third-degree aggravated unlicensed driving (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[1][a]). The instrument, including a certified abstract of defendant's driving record, alleged that defendant operated a motor vehicle on December 16, 2015 while his license was revoked because of a September 19, 2014 "DWI conviction"; and that defendant knew his license was revoked because the revocation order was sent to his last known address and informed him that his license would not be reinstated until he satisfied certain requirements, including payment of a $25 "suspension termination fee" (see People v Abutiate, 59 Misc 3d 127[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50372[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1077 [2018]; 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: June 17, 2021

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

People v Sanchez (2021 NY Slip Op 50557(U)) [*1]

People v Sanchez (Steven)

2021 NY Slip Op 50557(U) [71 Misc 3d 141(A)]

Decided on June 17, 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 June 17, 2021

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McShan, J.P., Brigantti, Hagler, JJ.
570759/16

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Steven Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Kevin McGrath, J.), rendered October 18, 2016, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Kevin McGrath, J.), rendered October 18, 2016, affirmed.

Since defendant waived the right to be prosecuted by information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be assessed under the standard required of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of third-degree aggravated unlicensed driving (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[1][a]). The instrument, including a certified abstract of defendant's driving record, alleged that defendant operated a motor vehicle on December 16, 2015 while his license was revoked because of a September 19, 2014 "DWI conviction"; and that defendant knew his license was revoked because the revocation order was sent to his last known address and informed him that his license would not be reinstated until he satisfied certain requirements, including payment of a $25 "suspension termination fee" (see People v Abutiate, 59 Misc 3d 127[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50372[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1077 [2018]; 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: June 17, 2021

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 Misc. 3d 141(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50557(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sanchez-steven-nyappterm-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack