People v Johnson (2006 NY Slip Op 50586(U))

People v Johnson (Howard)

2006 NY Slip Op 50586(U) [11 Misc 3d 139(A)]

Decided on April 7, 2006

Appellate Term, Second 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Howard B. Johnson, Appellant.

Appeal from judgments of the City Court of Peekskill, Westchester County (William L. Maher, J.), rendered September 24, 2003. The judgments convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of passing a stop sign and not wearing a seat belt.

Defendant was issued two simplified traffic informations which charged him with a failure to stop at a stop sign and operating a motor vehicle without wearing a seat belt. Defendant requested and received supporting depositions. The supporting depositions were signed by the complainant police officer. Following a trial, defendant was convicted of the two charges.

On this appeal, defendant claims that the supporting depositions are defective as they were issued by the complainant, contrary to the requirements of section 100.20 of the Criminal Procedure Law. However, where, as here, defendant was charged by simplified traffic informations and made a request for supporting depositions, the supporting depositions may be provided by the complainant police officer in accordance with CPL 100.25. Thus, the supporting depositions conformed to the legal requirements applicable thereto. Contrary to defendant's contention, the simplified traffic information charging defendant with failing to stop at a stop sign was in the form prescribed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and, when read together with the supporting deposition, contained sufficient allegations of fact providing reasonable cause to believe that defendant failed to stop at the stop sign located at the corner of Requa and Depew Avenues in the City of Peekskill on the date and time alleged (see CPL 100.15 [2] [a]; 100.25).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a [*2]reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our [*3]
factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdicts of guilty were not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]). Under the circumstances, the judgments of conviction should be affirmed.