 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Thomas Corletta
Thomas A. Corletta, ESQ. 585-546-5072
|
|
|
License
Traffic and License Problems Mr. Corletta also offers a complete array of services with respect to the traffic ticket and/or license problems. Mr. Corletta has handled well over two thousand such cases in his career, and is familiar with the Department of Motor Vehicles point system, as well as the various rules regarding license revocation/reinstatement. Mr. Corletta's office is also linked to the DMV computer, so that prompt license information can be obtained for clients. Mr. Corletta is also familiar with the various DMV departments, and has often solved client license problems by telephoning Albany and speaking with a License Examiner. If you have a license or point problem, please do not hesitate to contact us. Mr. Corletta is also experienced in making motions to vacate guilty pleas (called "CoramNobis" motions), in order to remove points from a clients' driving record and/or restore their license after it has been suspended. Recent Developments
Recently, the Court of Appeals held, in People v. Tyler 1 NY3d 493, that the measurement of the 30 day period for service of a Supporting Deposition requested by the driver runs from the date Defendant’s request is received by the Court, even if the request is made prior to the driver’s first appearance date in Court. This vindicated a long-standing position argued by Mr. Corletta in traffic cases, which was adopted in several unpublished decisions by local town Justices, but denied by others, who disregarded the clear language of the statute, as pointed out by the Court of Appeals. Further, Mr. Corletta has also championed the traffic Defendant’s right to counsel on several occasions. In two Wayne County Cases; People v. A. and People v. D., Wayne County Town Justices, in written opinions, dismissed speeding charges against Mr. Corletta’s clients after police served Supporting Depositions on Mr. Corletta’s clients, not Mr. Corletta, after Mr. Corletta had entered the case and requested them. Both Courts hold this was an interference with the driver’s right to counsel, and dismissed the charges. The cases were not appealed by the prosecution, and are followed as precedent. More recently, Mr. Corletta utilized his knowledge of the factual sufficiency requirements for Supporting Depositions to obtain twin dismissals, with the Prosecution’s consent, in two Ontario County cases. In People v. M. and People v. M. (12/08/04), each defendant was charged with engaging in an Unauthorized Speed Contest with the other. The Supporting Depositions were identical, and failed to sufficiently allege, by factual allegations, the elements of that offense, which is a misdemeanor. The State Trooper used a Supporting Deposition primarily designed for regular speeding cases. Mr. Corletta filed and served a written Motion to Dismiss. The People did not respond, and consented to dismissal. These cases emphasize the importance of proper factual allegations in a Supporting Deposition in traffic cases, and that requesting a Supporting Deposition in a traffic case is not just a mere formality, but rather the exercise of an important statutory right. Neither defendant would have been entitled to dismissal if Mr. Corletta had not requested a Supporting Deposition on their behalf. Mr. Corletta again utilized his overall knowledge of criminal law to obtain an unusual "interests of justice" dismissal in a Suspended License case. In People v. P. (4/18/05), Chili Town Justice Patrick Pietropaoli dismissed a Suspended License charge against Mr. Corletta's client due to an error made by another Judge in failing to inform the client of a mandatory license suspension hearing. When Mr. Corletta's client failed to appear for that hearing, his license was suspended. He subsequently drove without knowledge of the suspension, was stopped and arrested. Mr. Corletta pointed out the Court's error, and obtained a letter from the Judge acknowledging the error. This resulted in the dismissal of the charges and restoration of his client's license.
In the same Court, only a month later, Mr. Corletta obtained a dismissal of another suspended license charge from the same judge, without opposition from the People, based upon insufficiency of the accusatory instrument (People v. P. 5/16/05). Mr. Corletta has obtained dozens of such dismissals, too numerous to list, because the same defects keep appearing in accusatory instruments charging this offense. Further, a recent decision from the Appellate Division Fourth Department, in People v. Pacer 2005 WL 1377605(6/15/05) has made it virtually impossible to prove notice in suspended license cases, vindicating a position Mr. Corletta has argued for years.
Contesting even a small case can pay off. In People v. M.R. (Canandaigua Town Ct., 2/4/06), Mr. Corletta tried a speeding ticket to the Court. Even this small matter took approximately two hours. Citing a little-known section of the law prohibiting Courts from taking judical notice of speed limits, Mr. Corletta pointed out a key defect in the People's proof.
In addition, using the grade school arithmetic formula of rate x time equals distance, Mr. Corletta was able to show that a State Trooper, after first observing his client's car from only about eighty feet away, while passing in the opposite direction at 55 mph, could not possibly have made a visual estimate of his client's vehicle's speed, and then obtained a radar reading in such a short period.
The Court, commenting on the proof, found it "difficult to imagine" how the trooper could have done both of these things within the span of approximately one second.
To compund matters, Mr. Corletta's client was going up a hill, while the trooper was cresting the same hill in the opposite direction, further reducing visibility. Ability to observe to estimate speed is fundamental in speeding cases.
By obtaining a not guilty verdict, Mr. Corletta preserved his clent's clean driving record, which had been earned over more than thirty years of driving.
Mr. Corletta again demonstrated his persistence in People v. T.D.(Justice Ct., 3/20/05). In that cse, Mr. Corletta made a timely request for a Supporting Deposition. The Supporting Deposition was erroneously mailed directly to his client, and no proof of service was filed.
Mr. Corletta objected, pointing to the language of CPL ss100.25(2), which states that a Supporting Deposition must be served on Defendant's attorney, if he has one, and moved to dismiss the charge.
The Court, at the District Attorney's urging, although the statutory language is clear, initially denied the motion. Mr. Corletta however, persisted, pointing to the language of the statute and repeatedly challenging the Court and District Attorney to provide legal authority for their position.
The Court finally took a recess and checked the law. Upon retaking the bench, the Court reversed itself and granted Mr. Corletta's motion, dismissing the charge, because it is welll-established that a Supporting Deposition must be served upon a Defendant's representative, if he has one, since that is the purpose of obtaining counsel. Mr. Corletta has successfully argued this point in several other town and village courts.
Disturbingly, this small "victory" attracted a great deal of attention, with several individuals approaching Mr. Corletta after Court and requesting his services. Although only doing his job, this was a sad commentary on the one-sided nature of many of the proceedings in that particular court.
*NEW* MR. CORLETTA DEMONSTRATES KNOWLEDGE OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AGAIN Mr. Corletta again demonstrated his extensive knowledge of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law in a suspended license case in People v. T.B. (Irondequoit Town Ct., 10/2/08). In that case, Mr. Corletta’s client was charged with driving with a suspended and revoked Driver License. Attacking the accusatory instrument, Mr. Corletta pointed out several defects, and pointed out the differences in accusatory instruments charging this offense, and the legal requirements for each accusatory charging instrument. Under colloquy by the Judge, Mr. Corletta explained how the offense could be properly charged in the accusatory instrument, and how the accusatory instrument failed to do it. The Court agreed stating Mr. Corletta had the “correct analysis,” and dismissed the charge against Mr. Corletta’s client, which could have resulted in a misdemeanor conviction and a substantial fine. Mr. Corletta’s client, a professional, was extremely grateful for this exceptional result.
MR. CORLETTA RESTORES COMMERCIAL DRIVING PRIVILEGES FOR BUS DRIVER CLIENT Despite the resistance of a local Town Justice, Mr. Corletta was successful in restoring his 64 year-old bus driver client’s license in People v. J.M. (Macedon Town Ct., January 15, 2008). In that case, Mr. Corletta’s client pled guilty, without counsel, to Leaving the Scene of a Property Damage Accident, formerly a mere three (3) point violation. Mr. Corletta’s client was advised of this fact by the Town Justice and assessed a fine when he pled. Mr. Corletta’s client did not have an attorney at the time. Little did the client know, as a Commercial Driver License holder, that pursuant to recent legislation, a conviction for Leaving the Scene of a Property Damage Accident, whether or not it occurs while operating a commercial motor vehicle, results in a one (1) year revocation of the Commercial Driver License, without any opportunity for a Restricted Use License. Mr. Corletta’s client, employed by a local school district as a bus driver and mechanic operating heavy equipment, faced loss of his employment of some 17 years. Mr. Corletta acting quickly, immediately brought a “Coram Nobis” Motion. However, he faced resistance from the Town Justice, who did not want to grant it. Diligently researching the issue, Mr. Corletta demonstrated to the Town Justice, in a supplemental Memorandum, the grounds for such a Motion, and was able to persuade him to vacate his client’s conviction. As a result, his client’s Commercial Driver License was restored and his job taken out of jeopardy. Only due to Mr. Corletta’s knowledge of the law and diligence was this result obtained in the short window of time necessary to save his client’s job. MR. CORLETTA HELPS OUT-OF-STATE TRUCK DRIVER IN ONTARIO COUNTY Mr. Corletta helped an unfortunate out-of-state truck driver who was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Ontario County in People v. W.G. (Farmington Town Ct., 2/5/08). In that case, Mr. Corletta’s client was charged with running a red light and a misdemeanor “logbook” violation. The client resides in North Carolina. Focusing on two form Supporting Depositions containing insufficient facts that are usually used in Speeding cases, Mr. Corletta attacked the sufficiency of the factual allegations supporting the misdemeanor logbook charge and the red light charge. The arresting deputy did not see the alleged motor vehicle accident and set forth insufficient facts in both Supporting Depositions. Using his knowledge of the law regarding Supporting Depositions, Mr. Corletta successfully argued that even under the relaxed factual standard for Supporting Depositions, the deputy’s mere insertion of information on a form usually used for Speeding violations was insufficient. Prosecution-oriented Farmington Town Court agreed, dismissing both charges, thereby saving the truck driver a costly trip to New York to defend these charges. Mr. Corletta often defends out-of-state truck drivers and business people charged with traffic violations, DWI, etc. and has saved these people countless hours of unnecessary travel to travel to New York to defend these charges. Even if your client does not appear to be the most respectable person, sticking to the legal issues and focusing on them can generate favorable results. In People v. J.D.. (Brighton Town Ct., 9/8/09), Mr. Corletta’s client, a young inner city adult, was stopped in a suburban apartment complex at around 3:00 A.M. His girlfriend resided in the complex. Mr. Corletta’s client was driving a rental vehicle and it did not appear to police as if he belonged there. They detained him on questionable grounds, determined his license was suspended, and searched his vehicle, finding nothing. They issued him one Misdemeanor Traffic Ticket and two (2) Traffic Tickets for minor violations. They also searched his person, purportedly “incident to arrest” for these traffic violations, and confiscated all of his money, which was over $2,000.00 cash. They then proceeded to interrogate him, although he had no contraband on his person or in his vehicle, accusing him of drug dealing and requested his “cooperation.” The client took the tickets and called Mr. Corletta. Mr. Corletta then went to work examining the accusatory instruments. Mr. Corletta immediately noticed they were poorly prepared and filed a Motion to Dismiss the Misdemeanor Suspended License charge which could have netted his client 7 to180 days in jail. In addition, Mr. Corletta demanded return of the money, stating it had no relation whatsoever to the basis for the arrest, and was not a fruit or instrumentality of the alleged crime. Mr. Corletta was right on both counts. The Misdemeanor traffic charge was dismissed, and the police were directed to return his client’s money. The police, obviously using the traffic charges as a pretext, thought they had an easy “score” for both money and drugs. They then assumed, at a minimum, that even if the traffic charges were dismissed, they would be able to claim forfeiture of the money. They were wrong on both counts.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
