People v. Berrus, 802 N.E.2d 1089 (N.Y. 2003). · Go Syfert
People v. Berrus, 802 N.E.2d 1089 (N.Y. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Cited for
1 N.Y.3d at 536 Reversing dismissal for failing to consider CPL factors4 citing casesOPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. The order of County Court should be reversed and the simplified traffic information reinstated. Defendant received a…opening of page *536 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • People v. Martinez (Nicholas), 78 Misc. 3d 130 (N.Y. App. Term. 2023).unpublished 3 cites
    In any event, the October 7, 2021 order does not indicate that the court considered any of the factors enumerated in CPL 170.40 and the court failed to set forth its reasons for the dismissal in its order ( see CPL 170.40 [2]; People v Ber…
  • People v. Days, 53 Misc. 3d 181 (2016).published
    In making this determination, the court must consider the applicable factors under CPL 210.40 individually and collectively before concluding that dismissal of the indictment is in the interest of justice (see People v Jenkins; People v Be…
  • People v. LaFont, 43 Misc. 3d 384 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 2014).published
    (CPL 170.40 [2]; People v Berrus, 1 NY3d 535, 536 [2003].) The court has considered all of the section 170.40 (1) factors individually and in combination and, for the reasons that follow, concludes that defendant has satisfied her burden o…
  • People v. Jenkins, 898 N.E.2d 553 (N.Y. 2008).published 2 cites
    Based upon such proffered facts, the court must consider applicable factors under CPL 210.40 "individually and collectively" before concluding that dismissal of the indictment is in the interest of justice ( see People v Berrus, 1 NY3d 535…
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Appellant,
v.
Paul M. Berrus, Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Nov 25, 2003.
Published opinion
802 N.E.2d 1089
2003 N.Y. LEXIS 3981
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Michael F. Young, District Attorney, Syracuse and D.J. & J.A. Orando (John A. Orando, Lisa M. Orando, Susan R. Rider and Mickelle A. Olawoye of counsel), for appellant., Costello, Cooney & Fearson, LLP, Syracuse (Samuel C. Young of counsel), for respondent.
Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read Concur in Memorandum.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

[*536] OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of County Court should be reversed and the simplified traffic information reinstated.

Defendant received a simplified traffic information for failing to have lights on the back of a tractor that was pulling a manure spreader, around 5:00 p.m. in the Town of Denmark, County of Lewis, on December 5, 2001. Relying upon advice from the Court Administration Resource Center, the Town Justice concluded, erroneously, that lights were not required because a tractor is not a motor vehicle within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 375 and 376. The Town Justice dismissed the action in the interest of justice, and County Court affirmed.

In dismissing the case, the Town Justice referred to a provision of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 376 that was repealed by Laws of 1994, chapter 654, § 5, effective January 29, 1995, a provision referring to registered farm vehicles and requiring them to be equipped in accordance with regulations issued by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. By contrast, section 376 (1) (a) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which was in effect on the date the ticket was issued, requires lights on vehicles and thus includes tractors.

Moreover, when an action is dismissed in the interest of justice pursuant to CPL 170.40, the judge must consider, “individually and collectively,” the specific factors listed and must state reasons on the record (see also CPL 210.40). While dismissal may have been warranted, the record does not indicate that the Town Justice took into consideration the factors enumerated in CPL 170.40. We, therefore, reverse the order of County Court and reinstate the simplified traffic information.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.