On July 1, 2025, at approximately 8:01 AM at the north-east corner of Avenue C and East 14th Street, New York, New York, defendant, Elisa Saunders, failed to yield to a pedestrian walking across a crosswalk with the walk signal. Defendant struck the pedestrian with her vehicle when making a lefthand turn, and the pedestrian succumbed to his injuries.

For these acts, defendant was arrested and arraigned with one count of The Right of Way of Pedestrians and Bicyclists Physical Injury (Administrative Code [AC] § 19-190[b]), and one count of Failure of a Driver to Exercise Due Care — Serious Physical Injury (Vehicle and Traffic Law [VTL] § 1146) in New York County Criminal Court.

The criminal court complaint, sworn by Detective Gregory Gianacopulos specifically alleges that at approximately 8:01 AM at the north-east corner of Avenue C and East 14th Street, New York, New York:

I observed, via video surveillance of the intersection of East 14th Street and Avenue C, on July 1, 2025, at approximately 8:01 AM, a gray Nissan SUV with North Carolina license plate #LJE2169 traveling eastbound on East 14th Street toward Avenue C and entering the intersection. I further observed Thomas Scanzera, of an address known to the District Attorney's Office, enter the same intersection in the marked crosswalk and begin walking across the street while in the crosswalk. I further observed that the pedestrian signal for the above-described crosswalk was displaying the walk signal.

I then observed the above-described vehicle turn left into the above-described crosswalk and strike Mr. Scanzera in the crosswalk. I further observed the above-described vehicle then come to a stop.

The defendant stated in substance to me that the above-described vehicle belongs to her, and that she was the operator of the vehicle on July 1, 2025, at approximately 8:01 AM, [*2]in the intersection of East 14th Street and Avenue C when it struck Mr. Scanzera in the crosswalk. The defendant also stated in substance that she did not see anyone in the intersection, and stopped her vehicle when she heard people yelling outside the vehicle.

I am informed by the Office of the Chief Medial Examiner in a certified death certificate, signed by Medical Examiner Lindsay Nelson on July 10, 2025, that Thomas Scanzera died on July 2, 2025, at approximately 12:18 AM, as a result of "multiple blunt force injuries" from being struck and pinned under a vehicle on July 1, 2025 in the intersection of East 14th Street and Avenue C.

On September 15, 2025, the parties appeared before this Court for calendar call. The People filed and served a certified death certificate and moved this Court by oral motion to convert the criminal court complaint into a misdemeanor information. Defendant, through counsel, opposed on the basis that the People did not provide video surveillance footage, which he argued constituted inadmissible hearsay. This Court denied the People's motion for conversion on that ground.

Now, in papers dated September 30, 2025, the People move this Court for leave to reargue and leave to renew the Court's September 15, 2025 decision on the ground that this Court misapprehended the law, supplying this Court with caselaw that was not provided to the Court on September 15, 2025. Defendant, through counsel, opposes, in papers dated November 10, 2025. The People filed a reply on November 21, 2025.

Upon review of the parties' submissions and the annexed exhibits therein, along with a review of the relevant caselaw, the Court's Decision is as follows.

As an initial matter, a motion for leave to reargue shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion (see CPLR § 2221 [d] [2]). Additionally, it is well-settled that "a motion for reargument, addressed to the discretion of the court, is designed to afford a party an opportunity to establish that the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts, or misapplied any controlling principle of law. Its purpose is not to serve as a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided" (see Pro Brokerage, Inc., v Home Ins. Co., 472 NYS2d 661-662 [1st Dept 1984] citing Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1st Dept 1979]).

A motion for leave to renew (1) shall be identified specifically as such; (2) shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination; and (3) shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion. See CPLR 2221(e). Additionally, it is well settled that an application for leave to renew a motion must be predicated on new matters not available prior to the court's decision, Matter of Ahmad v Purcell, 82 AD2d 802, 441 (2d Dept 1981), or which existed at the time the prior motion was made, but were not then known to the party seeking leave to renew, and, therefore, not made known to the court. And where there is a possibility that the deciding Court may have been mislead prior to rendering a decision, the Court may grant a motion to reargue or renew nunc pro tunc. Di Russo v Kravitz, 21 NY2d 1008, 1010 (1968) (promptly made motion for renewal properly granted, nunc pro tunc, when underlying papers were misleading).

Here, since the People's motion to reargue and renew conforms to the pleading [*3]requirements for a motion to reargue and a motion to renew, reargument and renewal are granted.

Turning to the merits, upon reconsideration, this Court deems the criminal court complaint a misdemeanor information. The People correctly assert that the allegation of an observation of video surveillance in the complaint does not constitute hearsay. An individual's "rendition of their observations when viewing video surveillance does not constitute hearsay." People v Pinckney, 83 Misc 3d 1222(A) (Crim Ct Bronx Co 2024); see e.g., People v West, 41 Misc 3d 542 (Crim Ct Bronx Co 2013) (deponent's factual allegations that he viewed video footage and saw defendant take money from the register was not hearsay); People v Patten, 32 Misc 3d 440 (City Ct Long Beach 2011) (police officer's observation of video was not hearsay); People v Lamber, 2002 WL 176921 (Crim Ct NY Co 2002) (officer personally viewed videotape of criminal conduct and was not hearsay). Defendant's arguments to the contrary, presented to this Court on September 15, 2025 and now, are meritless. The People correctly point out that defendant incorrectly conflates hearsay with authentication. Accordingly, the case is converted.

In sum, for the reasons discussed above, the People's motion for reargument and renewal is granted. The People's motion for conversion is granted and the criminal court complaint is deemed an information. This Court declines to address the parties' remaining contentions.

The foregoing constitutes the Opinion, Decision, and Order of the Court.