People v. Shapiro

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Shapiro

462 N.E.2d 1188, 61 N.Y.2d 880, 474 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4136

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 28, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 462 N.E.2d 1188 (People v. Shapiro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Shapiro, 462 N.E.2d 1188, 61 N.Y.2d 880, 474 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4136 (N.Y. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

[882]*882OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Term should be affirmed.

In view of the fact that the village constabulary was not lawfully constituted (County of Nassau v Incorporated Vil. of Woodsburgh, 58 NY2d 996), the constable in this case had no authority to issue a uniform traffic information (CPL 100.10, subd 2, par [a]). Although an ordinary information may be filed by any person (CPL 100.10, subd 1), the instrument may not serve that function in this case because it did not contain, as the statute requires, “a statement of the complainant alleging facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charges” (CPL 100.15, subd 3).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Kaye concur; Judge Simons taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

[882]*882OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Term should be affirmed.

In view of the fact that the village constabulary was not lawfully constituted (County of Nassau v Incorporated Vil. of Woodsburgh, 58 NY2d 996), the constable in this case had no authority to issue a uniform traffic information (CPL 100.10, subd 2, par [a]). Although an ordinary information may be filed by any person (CPL 100.10, subd 1), the instrument may not serve that function in this case because it did not contain, as the statute requires, “a statement of the complainant alleging facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charges” (CPL 100.15, subd 3).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Kaye concur; Judge Simons taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

462 N.E.2d 1188, 61 N.Y.2d 880, 474 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shapiro-ny-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack