New York Criminal Attorney Blog

Recently I was contacted by a person who had been issued a ticket for passing a stopped school bus (VTL 1174 “Overtaking And Passing School Bus) by a New Rochelle Police Officer who left the ticket with this person’s son at the front door of his home located in White Plains, New York. Briefly, this gentleman’s front doorbell rang. His nineteen year old son answered the door and was greeted by a New Rochelle Police Officer who asked him if he was the owner of a particular vehicle that was parked in his driveway. The son said he wasn’t but that his dad was at which point the New Rochelle Police Officer handed the son a traffic ticket for his father for passing a stopped school bus (VTL 1174).

I later learned that the New Rochelle Police Officer had not witnessed the alleged improper passing of the school bus nor had any other police officers. However, a school bus driver had written down the license plate number of a vehicle the school bus driver alleged had failed to stop for the school bus which had stopped, activated its lights and stop-sign and was discharging school children. The school bus driver then contacted the police, told them what he witnessed and gave them the plate number.

The police ran the plate number and learned the make, model, year and color of the vehicle and who it was registered to. The make, model, year and color matched the description given by the school bus driver. That’s what led the New Rochelle Police to this person’s home in White Plains, NY. However, the police cannot issue a traffic ticket to a person by leaving it with someone else.

As I’ve explained in other articles, a traffic ticket, uniform traffic ticket, simplified traffic information, etc are all Appearance Tickets. (See e.g. People v. Tyler, 1 N.Y.3d 493 (2004)(speeding ticket is an appearance ticket) see also People v. Hollinger, 15 Misc. 3d 130A (App. Term 2nd Dept. 2007)(uniform traffic ticket is an “appearance ticket”).
Because they are also appearance tickets, traffic tickets issued to individuals must be personally served. [CPL 150.40(2)]. Furthermore, the police can only issue an appearance ticket for non-criminal offenses if such non-criminal offense is committed in their presence. See CPL 150.20(1) and People v. Genovese, 156 Misc. 2d 569 (J. Ct. 1992)

Here, the officer did not issue the ticket to the actual defendant but instead the officer left it with the defendant’s son. However, this is not grounds for dismissal of the case. A defendant issued an appearance ticket cannot appear in the criminal action for the sole purpose of challenging the court’s jurisdiction based upon improper service of said appearance ticket if a sufficient accusatory instrument has been filed.

This is because the appearance ticket has nothing to do with the court’s jurisdiction. The appearance ticket is merely an invitation to appear in court. It is the subsequent filing of a sufficient accusatory instrument that confers jurisdiction. Therefore, an improperly served appearance ticket is not a ground for dismissal of the underlying action although it could be a ground to dismiss a charge of failing to appear on an appearance ticket under PL 215.58. People v. Byfield, 131 Misc.2d 884 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1986).

For more information, feel free to contact Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-877-377-8666 or visit us on the web at www.tilemandcampbell.com. More detailed information can be found in our book “Appearance Tickets in New York” available at Amazon.com.

In New York, as elsewhere, probationary sentences for criminal charges play a major role in the criminal justice system. Incarceration is rarely appropriate. When a judge sentences a defendant to a sentence that involves probation, it is the judge that determines the conditions of such probation. By law, it is the judge who determines a sentence and the conditions of that sentence. The sentencing judge cannot delegate his or her sentencing authority by allowing the Department of Probation to determine a defendant’s probation conditions. It is improper for sentencing judge to simply tell a defendant at sentencing that the Department of Probation will determine the defendant’s probation conditions. Such a blanket delegation of total discretion to the department of probation without any court-imposed parameters and guidance is improper.

“Sentenc[ing] is primarily a judicial responsibility.” People v. Selikoff, 35 N.Y.2d 227, 240 (1974). The granting of probation is a judicial process exercised in the discretion of the sentencing court. People v. Oskroba, 305 N.Y. 113 (1953). When a defendant is sentenced to probation, the Court, not the probation department, sets the terms and conditions of probation. PL § 65.10(1).

New York Criminal Procedure Law § 410.10(1) provides in part, “When the court pronounces a sentence of probation . . . it must specify as part of the sentence the conditions to be complied with.” This duty of the court to specify probation conditions cannot be delegated to the probation department or to any other party. See People v. Fuller, 57 N.Y.2d 152 (1982)(“Although a sentencing court may utilize the Probation Department “to act as a preliminary fact finder and submit its recommendations in a written report . . . in the end it is for the court, which alone must impose the sentence, to decide how much of the report, if any, to adopt and how much to reject”).

This sentencing structure has never been interpreted to allow the probation department to set the conditions of probation. To the contrary “the terms of probation must be prescribed by the court and not the probation officer”. People v. McDonald, 136 Misc.2d 1047, 1050 (N.Y.Sup. 1987)

In Darvin M. v. Jacobs, 69 N.Y.2d 957, 964 (1987), the Court of Appeals stated “in our system, the role of the Probation Department, an unelected administrative agency, is to supervise probationers (see, CPL 410.50[2]; Executive Law § 255[2] ) [and] enforce the conditions of probation imposed by the sentencing court (9 NYCRR 352.3[b] [1] )”

In fact, it has been held that it is against “public policy to allow a trial judge to delegate his sentencing discretion to an administrative agency.” People v. Nichols, 85 A.D.2d 753, 754 (3rd Dept. 1981). Furthermore, the rules pertaining the Supervision of Persons Sentenced to or Placed on Probation define the term “conditions of probation” as “specific supervision requirements prescribed by the court as part of the probation disposition to assist the probationer in leading a law-abiding life.” 9 NY ADC 351.1(e)(emphasis supplied). The same rules further provide “Courts are required to impose specific conditions relating to supervision and other conditions required by law . . .” 9 NY ADC 351.7(emphasis supplied)

In People ex rel. Perry v. Cassidy, 23 A.D.2d 706 (3rd Dept. 1965), the Third Department held that it was improper for the sentencing court to order a youthful offender placed on probation “on such terms as the probation officer shall provide for you” because such a statement failed to determine the conditions of probation.

Accordingly, the sentencing court sets the conditions of probation based upon what it deems reasonably necessary. A sentencing court cannot simply defer all discretion to probation. Such a “whatever probation says” condition is improper.

For more information about this or any other criminal justice issue in New York, please contact Tilem and Campbell toll free at 1-877-377-8666 or visit us on the web at www.tilemandcampbell.com

With Limited Exceptions, When the Defendant is a Natural Person,
Appearance Tickets Must be Served Personally [CPL 150.40(2)]

Generally, under New York law, other than an appearance ticket issued for a traffic infraction relating to parking, an appearance ticket must be personally served. Except, an appearance ticket issued for the violation of a local zoning ordinance or local zoning law, or of a local building or sanitation code may be issued in any manner authorized for service in a civil action under CPLR 308. CPL 150.40(2).

To summarize, appearance tickets issued to natural persons in New York must be personally served. Except, appearance tickets may be served in accordance with CPLR 308 (see below section) if they are for parking violations or violations of local zoning, building or sanitation violations.

Service Upon a Natural Person by Mail Insufficient. New York City Routinely Ignores The Requirement That Appearance Tickets Issued To Natural Persons Be Personally Served.

Personal service on a “defendant, whose liberty will be at stake in a criminal action, serves to assure his right to adequate notice and expeditious resolution of the charges.” People v. DiLorenzo, 149 Misc.2d 791, 794 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1990). In DiLorenzo, the court noted that the certified mailing of an appearance ticket that should have been personally served was insufficient service.

In People v. Baxter, 148 Misc.2d 1009 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1990) the court found service of appearance tickets by a New York City administrative agency by mail defective and dismissed charges for lack of jurisdiction. In doing so, the court observed “that the CPL requirements of personal service are not being followed by the Buildings Department and other administrative agencies.” Id. at 1010.

In People v. Neuberger, 149 Misc.2d 1 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1991) the court dismissed all charges against the defendants in the interests of justice explaining that “[a]s for the Corporation Counsel’s continued practice of flouting the service requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law, that abuse cannot be left unremedied.” People v. Neuberger, 149 Misc. 2d 1, 5 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1991).

In Neuberger, several defendants were served appearance tickets by mail which ordered them to appear in criminal court. The Honorable Martin G. Karopkin explained that the Corporation Counsel had been warned numerous times over the preceding several months that such service by mail was improper:

On numerous occasions during the past several months this court, and others, have warned the Office of the Corporation Counsel, the Buildings Department and other city agencies that service by mail is improper and contrary to CPL 150.40, as well as CPL 600.10

Id. at 1-2.

Despite the repeated warnings of both J. Karopkin and other judges, “the Corporation Counsel . . . continued to submit affidavits of mailing to the court accompanying its pleadings and to argue that the defendants’ appearances confer jurisdiction and render that issue moot.” Id. at 2-3.

In other words, the New York City Corporation Counsel knowingly served appearance tickets on individuals by mail, in clear contravention of the law. What’s more troubling is that they continued to do so even after several judges warned the Corporation Counsel that such service was improper. Thus, the Corporation Counsel “acquired these defendants’ presence by means of improper service” and then argued that the defendants’ mere presence before the court conferred jurisdiction thus mooting the service issue. Id. at 5.

Continue reading " HOW CAN APPEARANCE TICKETS ISSUED IN NEW YORK BE SERVED [CPL 150.40(2)] " »