People v. Tyler
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 This vindicated a long-standing position argued by our law office in traffic cases, which was adopted in several unpublished decisions by local town Justices, but denied by others, who disregarded the clear language of the statute, as pointed out by the Court of Appeals.
People v. M.
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 2 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.
People v. P.
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.
People v. M.R
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 2 hours. Citing a little-known section of the law prohibiting Courts from taking judicial notice of speed limits, Mr. Corletta pointed out a key defect in the People's proof.
People v. W.G.
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 2 form Supporting Depositions containing insufficient facts, 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. 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.