People v. Scott (Dalton)

People v Scott (2022 NY Slip Op 51363(U)) [*1] People v Scott (Dalton) 2022 NY Slip Op 51363(U) [77 Misc 3d 138(A)] Decided on December 22, 2022 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. Decided on December 22, 2022 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT: : TIMOTHY S. DRISCOLL, J.P., JERRY GARGUILO, ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, JJ 2021-697 S CR The People of the State of New York, Appellant, against Dalton J. Scott, Respondent. Suffolk County Traffic Prosecutor's Office (Justin W. Smiloff of counsel), for appellant. Dalton J. Scott, respondent pro se (no brief filed). Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (John F. Reilly, J.H.O.), rendered October 4, 2021. The order, sua sponte, dismissed the simplified traffic information. ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, the simplified traffic information is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the District Court of Suffolk County, Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency for all further proceedings. On October 4, 2021, defendant was arraigned on a simplified traffic information charging him with failing to change the registration address for his car in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401 (3), and the People filed a CPL 710.30 (1) (a) notice indicating that defendant had stated to the officer that he lived in Queens. After defendant pleaded not guilty, he was instructed to choose a trial date, but instead asked the court, "Can I get it over with like today." Defendant then submitted a registration for the vehicle to the court, as well as other documents, and explained that the vehicle, which defendant co-owned with his wife, was registered in Florida and that his wife lives both in Florida and New York. The Judicial hearing officer then decided to "dismiss[] the no point violation rather than prolonging the matter." The People appeal. It is well settled that a trial court can dismiss a pending criminal prosecution only upon [*2]the limited grounds set forth in the Criminal Procedure Law (see Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564 [1988]; People v Douglass, 60 NY2d 194, 205 [1983]; People v Atta-Poku, 63 Misc 3d 131[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50414[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2019]; People v Tartaglione, 5 Misc 3d 126[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51190[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004]), as a court does not possess the inherent power to order its dismissal (see Douglass, 60 NY2d at 205; People v Spellman, 233 AD2d 254 [1996]; People v Roesch, 163 AD2d 429 [1990]; Atta-Poku, 2019 NY Slip Op 50414[U]). The dismissal of the simplified traffic information in the case at bar prior to trial was improper since it was not based on any statutory ground (see e.g. CPL 170.30). We pass on no other issue. Accordingly, the order is reversed, the simplified traffic information is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the District Court of Suffolk County, Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency for all further proceedings. DRISCOLL, J.P., GARGUILO and EMERSON, JJ., concur. ENTER: Paul Kenny Chief Clerk Decision Date: December 22, 2022