Defendant stands before the Court charged with driving while intoxicated in violation of NY Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192(2) and (3) as well as the traffic infractions of passing a red signal in violation of VTL § 1111(d)(1) and no stopping on a crosswalk in violation of VTL § 1201(a). The charges stem from an alleged incident that took place on July 15, 2023, in the City of Beacon, New York. On September 14, 2023 the defendant filed the instant Notice of Motion and accompanying attorney affirmation seeking various forms of relief. The People submitted their Affirmation in Answer to defendant's motion on December 11, 2023 and on January 4, 2023 the defendant filed his reply affirmation. The Court now considers the matter fully submitted and the Court's determination is set forth below.

For an accusatory instrument to constitute a valid, facially sufficient information, several requirements must be met. Specifically, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Section 100.40(1) an information is facially sufficient when it substantially conforms to the requirements prescribed in § 100.15, the allegations of the factual part of the information, together with those of any supporting depositions which may accompany it, provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged in the accusatory part of the information, and non-hearsay allegations of the factual part of the information and/or of any supporting depositions establish, if true, every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof. The People have the burden to establish that the above referenced requirements are met, and that an accusatory instrument is facially sufficient (People v. Jones, 9 NY3d 259 [2007]). Additionally, the court's review of the factual allegations is confined to the four corners of the instrument itself and any supporting depositions (People v. Thomas, 4 NY3d 143 [2005]). However, when reviewing an accusatory instrument for facial sufficiency the court must view [*2]the facts in a light most favorable to the prosecution (People v. Vonancken, 27 Misc 3d 132(A) [App. Term 2d Dept. 2010]). Furthermore, the court should not hold the prosecution to the high threshold of the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard necessary at trial (People v. Henderson, 92 NY2d 677 [1999]).

Defendant seeks dismissal of the accusatory instruments charging driving while intoxicated on the ground that the simplified traffic ticket and the DWI Bill of Particulars and Supporting Deposition identify a different location as the place where the alleged incident occurred. Specifically, the accusatory instrument indicates that the defendant was driving while intoxicated on North Cedar Street while the supporting deposition alleges that the Defendant was driving while intoxicated in a westerly direction on Verplank Avenue. Defendant argues that such an error is fatal and a facial defect cannot be cured by reference to other documents. Furthermore, the defendant, relying on the Court of Appeals decision in People v. Hardy, argues that this type of defect cannot be amended as the People must file a superseding information (People v. Hardy, 35 N.Y 3d 466 [2020]). The People oppose this relief and argue that despite the difference in location, both the uniform traffic ticket and the supporting deposition are accurate and provide the defendant with notice of where the crime is alleged to have been committed. Furthermore, the People disagree with the defendant's assertion that the accusatory instruments are unamendable as in their reading Hardy allows the affiant (in this case the police officer) to amend a supporting deposition. To this end, the People allege that Officer Donovan filed an amended Bill of Particulars/Supporting Deposition with the Court on September 20, 2023 which changed the location to North Cedar Street to bring it into conformity with the Uniform Traffic Tickets. However, the Court notes that the original amended Bill of Particulars/Supporting Deposition has not been filed with the Court, and therefore the Court will only consider the papers that were filed at the same time as the accusatory instruments.

This Court finds the holding in People v. Minott instructive on this specific issue (People v. Minott, 70 Misc 3d 1217[a] [New York County Criminal Court, 2021]). In that case, the accusatory instrument alleged that the Defendant committed an offense on "Chatham Street" however the actual name of the street was "Chatham Square." Distinguishing the matter from Hardy, the court noted that the defendant in Hardy was charged with violating an order of protection on a date that fell outside the scope of the order, while in the case before it changing the word "Street" to "Square" would not convert a facially insufficient information to a facially sufficient one as the error did not negate an element of the crime. The court reasoned that such an error is non-jurisdictional in nature. Similarly, in People v. Perry, the Appellate Term, First Department held that a "minor discrepancy between the complaint and deposition regarding the precise location of the moving train when the incident occurred was merely technical, not jurisdictional" (People v. Perry, 78 Misc 3d 132[ A] [App. Term 1st Dep't, 2023]).

In the case before this Court, the reference to Verplank Avenue does not implicate a jurisdictional issue or negate an essential element of the crime of driving while intoxicated. Specifically, North Cedar Street and Verplank Avenue intersect and, therefore, the reference to these locations are not mutually exclusive. The accusatory instrument and supporting deposition give the Defendant "notice sufficient to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent him from being tried twice for the same offense" and as such "they should be given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v. Konieczny, 2 N.Y 3d 569 [2000]). Based on the foregoing, defendant's motion to dismiss the driving while intoxicated charges for facial insufficiency is denied.

The defendant also seeks dismissal of the simplified traffic tickets charging § 1111(d)(1) and § 1201(a) on the ground that a timely request for supporting depositions on these tickets was made and to date none have been provided. On January 20, 2023 counsel for defendant sent a letter to the court requesting that supporting depositions of the complainant police officer be served upon the defendant for each of the charges. The people have not addressed this portion of defendant's motion. As no supporting depositions were filed to support these simplified traffic infractions, they are dismissed without prejudice (People v. Nuccio, 78 NY2d 102 [1991]).

Defendant moves for suppression of properly noticed statements pursuant to CPL §710.30. alleging that such statements were obtained in violation of his rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1 §§ 6.11 and 12 of the New York State Constitution and that such statements were involuntarily made within the meaning of CPL § 60.45(2)(6)(i) and (ii). On consent of the People, the Court will hold a Huntley hearing prior to trial (CPL § 710.60[4]); People v. Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965].

Defendant's request to preclude the people from offering evidence at trial of any statements, subject to the CPL § 710.30 requirement, which are not included and/or sufficiently described in the People's CPL § 710.30 notice will be addressed at the Huntley Hearing.

Contrary to the People's contention, the Court finds that defendant has articulated facts sufficient to warrant a hearing. As such, this portion of defendant's motion is granted to the extent that a combined Mapp/Dunaway hearing will be held prior to trial (Dunaway v. New York, 422 US 200 [1979]; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 642 [1961]).

On consent of the People, the Court will hold a "Gursey hearing" regarding the admissibility of the defendant's chemical test refusal at trial.

Defendant's motion is granted to the extent that the People are ordered to disclose a list of all misconduct and criminal acts of the defendant, not charged, which the prosecution intends to use at trial for the purposes of impeaching the credibility of the defendant, or as substantive proof of any material issue in the case (see People v. Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]; People v. Molineux, 168 NY 264, 61 N.E. 286 [1901]; CPL § 245.20[3]). In addition, the people shall designate whether they intend to use each designated act for impeachment of the defendant, should he elect to testify at trial, and/or as substantive proof on their direct case. The Court further orders a Sandoval/Ventimiglia hearing that will be addressed by motion in limine and held immediately prior to trial to determine which, if any, bad acts or convictions may be used as impeachment in the event that the defendant elects to testify at trial, and if applicable, what bad acts or convictions may be offered as substantive proof of any material issue in the case.

Defendant's motion for discovery is granted solely to the extent that the People shall disclose to the defendant, and permit the defendant to discover, inspect, copy, photograph and test, all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case and are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution's direction or control pursuant to CPL Article 245.

The defendant's request for leave to file additional motions is granted to the extent that the defendant may file any appropriate pre-trial motion based upon the grounds of which the defendant could not, with due diligence, have been previously aware, or which, for other good cause, could not reasonably have been raised heretofore (CPL § 255.20[3]).

The foregoing shall constitute the Decision and Order of this court.