People v. Schweitzer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Schweitzer

83 A.D.3d 503, 922 N.Y.S.2d 295

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 14, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 83 A.D.3d 503 (People v. Schweitzer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State 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. Schweitzer, 83 A.D.3d 503, 922 N.Y.S.2d 295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell Wiley, J.), rendered April 11, 2007, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of leaving the scene of an accident without reporting, and sentencing him to a $1,000 fine, unanimously affirmed.

We agree with defendant that his plea allocution was defective, and that the exception to the preservation requirement discussed in People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]) applies. Viewed as a whole, the allocution does not establish that defendant understood he was admitting that, at the time he left the scene, he knew or had reason to know that personal injury had been caused to another person due to an incident involving his vehicle, as opposed to having learned later that he had struck and injured someone. Such contemporaneous knowledge is an essential element of leaving the scene of an accident without reporting (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600 [2] [a]).

Nevertheless, the only relief defendant requests is a dismissal in the interest of justice, and he expressly requests this Court to affirm his conviction if it does not dismiss the indictment. Since dismissal is not warranted (see generally People v Stewart, 230 AD2d 116 [1997], appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 900 [1998]), we affirm. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell Wiley, J.), rendered April 11, 2007, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of leaving the scene of an accident without reporting, and sentencing him to a $1,000 fine, unanimously affirmed.

We agree with defendant that his plea allocution was defective, and that the exception to the preservation requirement discussed in People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]) applies. Viewed as a whole, the allocution does not establish that defendant understood he was admitting that, at the time he left the scene, he knew or had reason to know that personal injury had been caused to another person due to an incident involving his vehicle, as opposed to having learned later that he had struck and injured someone. Such contemporaneous knowledge is an essential element of leaving the scene of an accident without reporting (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600 [2] [a]).

Nevertheless, the only relief defendant requests is a dismissal in the interest of justice, and he expressly requests this Court to affirm his conviction if it does not dismiss the indictment. Since dismissal is not warranted (see generally People v Stewart, 230 AD2d 116 [1997], appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 900 [1998]), we affirm. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 503, 922 N.Y.S.2d 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-schweitzer-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack