| People v Lopez |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 24152 [84 Misc 3d 1] |
| Accepted for Miscellaneous Reports Publication |
| Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected through Wednesday, October 30, 2024 |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ariel Lopez, Appellant. |
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, May 21, 2024
Legal Aid Society (Ying-Ying Ma of counsel) for appellant.
Alvin Bragg, District Attorney (David Gagne of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment of conviction (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered June 28, 2016, modified, on the law, to vacate defendant's conviction for aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, to dismiss the count of the accusatory instrument relating thereto, and, if paid, to remit the $200 fine imposed on that conviction, and otherwise affirmed.
As the People now concede, defendant's conviction of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [1] [a]) must be vacated because the trial evidence was legally insufficient to prove that the defendant knew or had reason to know that his license had been suspended (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [1] [a]), a required element of the offense.
However, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of unlicensed driving (see Vehicle and Traffic{**84 Misc 3d at 3} Law § 509 [1]), which offense lacks the element of knowledge that one's license had been suspended or revoked (see People v Fields, 58 Misc 3d 133[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51786[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2017]; see also People v Pacer, 6 NY3d 504, 513 [2006]).
The Driver's License Suspension Reform Act, which amended Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510 (4-a) to remove the failure to pay a fine as a basis for the suspension of a driver's license, was enacted after defendant's conviction and does not mandate reversal of the judgment convicting defendant of unlicensed driving (see People v Pagan, 222 AD3d 440, 441 [1st Dept 2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 943 [2024]). In any event, even if the statute were retroactive, it would not have warranted vacatur of the conviction, in light of defendant's license suspensions that did not result from nonpayment of fines (id.; see People v Urena, 80 Misc 3d 129[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 50981[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1041 [2023]).
Brigantti, J.P., James and Perez, JJ., concur.