The People of the State of New York, v. Gregory Jones, Defendant. (2026)

Defendant is charged by misdemeanor information with Unlawful Fleeing A Police Officer in a Motor Vehicle in the Third Degree (PL § 270.25) and Reckless Driving (VTL § 1212 [a]). Simplified traffic informations were also filed charging defendant with three counts of Failure to Signal (VTL § 1163); four counts of Failure to Stop at a Steady Red Light (VTL § 1111 [d][1]); and Failure to have Two License Plates (VTL § 402 [1][a]).

The accusatory instruments allege that on July 25, 2025, at approximately 4:15pm, in the vicinity of South 5th Avenue and West 3rd Street, defendant operated a motorcycle in a reckless manner. It is alleged that the officers observed defendant commit multiple traffic violations, including failing to signal and operating a motorcycle without a visible license plate. The accusatory further alleges that those officers attempted to initiate a stop of defendant's vehicle, but defendant failed to comply, and instead continued operating the motorcycle at a high rate of speed through steady red lights, weaving in and out of traffic, overtaking cars and failing to signal while the police were in pursuit. The accusatory further alleges that the pursuing officers ultimately terminated the pursuit.

A Dunaway hearing was held on May 11, 2026. The People called one witness, Mount Vernon Police Investigator Alphonse Piliero. The defense did not call any witnesses.

Investigator Piliero testified that he has been employed by the Mount Vernon Police Department for approximately three and one-half years. He received police academy training in patrol procedures and Vehicle and Traffic Law enforcement. He currently serves as a police investigator.

On July 25, 2025 he was assigned to patrol task force, training officers. At approximately 4:15pm, he was on patrol in an unmarked black Tahoe with Police Officer Edwin Jimenez; they both were in uniform. The officers were traveling in the vicinity of South 5th Avenue and West 4th Street when they observed Defendant Gregory Jones driving a motorcycle. Investigator Piliero testified that he was approximately 10 to 15 feet away from the defendant. Investigator Piliero testified that he was familiar with the defendant prior to the police pursuit, explaining that he had prior police interactions with him and had arrested him in the summer of 2024. Investigator Piliero testified that the defendant made a left turn to proceed northbound onto South 5th Avenue without signaling. He further observed that the motorcycle did not have a visible license plate. The officers followed the defendant on South 5th Avenue and attempted to initiate a stop of defendant's vehicle. He testified that Officer Jimenez activated the lights and sirens on the unmarked police vehicle. He testified that the defendant did not stop, proceeded through a flashing light at West 2nd Street and continued driving over 30 miles per hour. Investigator Piliero testified that the defendant looked in the direction of the pursuing officers but continued driving.

Investigator Piliero testified that he observed the defendant proceed through a steady red traffic light in the vicinity of Stephens Avenue and North Third Avenue and nearly collide with another vehicle. According to the investigator, the driver of that vehicle was forced to brake abruptly to avoid collision with the defendant. He testified that defendant continued to drive despite seeing them in pursuit. Investigator Piliero testified that they pursued defendant for approximately three minutes before terminating the pursuit in the vicinity of North 3rd Avenue and Sidney Avenue in Mount Vernon, NY. He testified that later that day officers attempted to locate defendant but were unsuccessful.

The misdemeanor information and simplified traffic informations were filed on September 9, 2025. Defendant was arraigned on the charges the same day.

At the hearing, defendant principally challenged the People's proof identifying him as the operator of the motorcycle. Defendant argues that Investigator Piliero's prior interaction with defendant occurred one year before the incident and that the officer's failure to immediately proceed to defendant's residence after the pursuit undermines the reliability of the identification. Defendant questioned why the officers did not go to the defendant's residence the same day to apprehend him if they knew his identity.

Pursuant to CPL § 30.10[2][c], a prosecution for a misdemeanor must be commenced within two years after the commission thereof. Pursuant to CPL § 30.10 [2][d], a prosecution for a petty offense, including a traffic infraction, must be commenced within one year after the commission thereof. A criminal action is commenced by the filing of an accusatory instrument with the court (CPL § 1.20 [7]).

Here, the charged offenses allegedly occurred on July 25, 2025. The misdemeanor information charging Unlawful Fleeing of a Police Officer in a Motor Vehicle in the Third Degree and Reckless Driving, together with the simplified traffic informations, were filed on September 9, 2025. Accordingly, the criminal action was commenced well within the applicable statute of limitations period. There is no statutory requirement that the simplified traffic information be issued contemporaneously with the commission of the alleged offense. Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the accusatory instruments were timely filed and whether the police possessed a lawful basis to identify defendant as the operator of the vehicle.

The determination of probable cause must be based upon an examination of all the credible evidence presented at the hearing. The initial burden is on the People to put forth credible evidence to establish that the arrest was based upon probable cause and to demonstrate the legality of police conduct in the first instance (See People v. Dodt, 61 NY2d 408, 462 N.E.2d 1159, 474 N.Y.S.2d 441 [1984]; People v. Malinsky, 15 NY2d 86, 209 N.E.2d 694, 262 N.Y.S.2d 65 [1965]; People v. Hernandez, 40 AD3d 777, 836 N.Y.S.2d 219 [2d Dept 2007]). Once the People have met this burden it is the defendant who bears the burden of proving any illegality of the police conduct by preponderance of the evidence (See People v. Berrios, 28 NY2d 361, 270 N.E.2d 709, 321 N.Y.S.2d 884 [1971]; People v. Whitehurst, 25 NY2d 389, 254 N.E.2d 905, 306 N.Y.S.2d 673 [1969]).

The Court finds that Investigator Piliero credibly identified the defendant as the operator of the motorcycle. The investigator testified that he knew defendant from prior police interactions and had personally arrested him in 2024. A witness's identification based upon prior familiarity with a defendant constitutes recognition of a known individual rather than identification of a stranger (People v Rodriguez, 79 MY2d 445 [1992]. Here Investigator Piliero testified that he observed defendant from a distance of approximately 10 to 15 feet away during daylight conditions and immediately recognized him. The Court credits that testimony and finds that the investigator possessed a sufficient basis for his identification of the defendant. The mere fact that approximately one year had elapsed prior to the arrest does not render the identification unreliable. Rather, the circumstance affects only the weight of the testimony, which this Court finds credible.

Moreover, the officers delay in arresting the defendant and filing the charges does not negate probable cause. Once Investigator Piliero recognized the defendant as the operator of the motorcycle, the officers were entitled to rely upon that identification in commencing criminal proceedings. Any delay between the incident and the filing of the accusatory instruments bears upon the weight of the identification evidence and the credibility of the witness, not upon the legal sufficiency of the prosecution or the existence of probable cause. Having credited Investigator Piliero's testimony, the Court finds that the delay in filing the charges does not undermine the existence of probable cause.

The Court further finds that Investigator Piliero observed defendant commit traffic violations prior to any attempted stop. Specifically, the investigator observed the defendant failed to signal a turn and operated a motorcycle without a visible license plate. Observation of either violation provided probable cause to stop the vehicle (People v. Robinson, 97 NY2d 341 (2001). People v Davis, 32 AD3d 445, 445, 821 NYS2d 217 [2d Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 924, 860 NE2d 995, 827 NYS2d 693 [2006]). The testimony further established that after the officers activated their emergency lights and sirens, defendant failed to stop and instead continued operating the motorcycle at a high rate of speed, drove through traffic signals, weaved through traffic, and nearly caused a collision with another motorist. These observations provided probable cause to believe the defendant committed the offenses of Reckless Driving and Unlawful Fleeing a Police Officer in a Motor Vehicle (see P.L. § 270.25; VTL § 1212; People v Cleveland, 85 Misc 3d 1201[A] [Crim Ct Bronx Co 2025]); People v Malave, 5 Misc 3d 1006(A) [Sup Ct. Bronx Co 2004].

Accordingly, the Court finds that the People satisfied their burden of establishing the legality of the police conduct and the existence of probable cause for the defendant's arrest. Defendant's motion is denied.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.

Dated: June 3, 2026

Mount Vernon, New York

HON. NICHELLE A. JOHNSON

City Judge of Mount Vernon

Nichelle A. Johnson, J.