Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Paul M. BERRUS, Respondent.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of County Court should be reversed and the simplified traffic information reinstated.
Defendant received a simplified traffic information for failing to have lights on the back of a tractor that was pulling a manure spreader, around 5:00 P.M. in the Town of Denmark, County of Lewis, on December 5, 2001. Relying upon advice from the Court Administration Resource Center, the Town Justice concluded, erroneously, that lights were not required because a tractor is not a motor vehicle within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 375 and 376. The Town Justice dismissed the action in the interest of justice, and County Court affirmed.
In dismissing the case, the Town Justice referred to a provision of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 376 that was repealed by Laws of 1994, chapter 654, § 5, effective January 29, 1995, a provision referring to registered farm vehicles and requiring them to be equipped in accordance with regulations issued by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. By contrast, section 376(1)(a) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which was in effect on the date the ticket was issued, requires lights on vehicles and thus includes tractors.
Moreover, when an action is dismissed in the interest of justice pursuant to CPL 170.40, the judge must consider, “individually and collectively,” the specific factors listed and must state reasons on the record (see also CPL 210.40). While dismissal may have been warranted, the record does not indicate that the Town Justice took into consideration the factors enumerated in CPL 170.40. We, therefore, reverse the order of County Court and reinstate the simplified traffic information.
Order reversed, etc.
MEMORANDUM.
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO and READ concur in memorandum.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 25, 2003
Court: Court of Appeals of New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)