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, Respondent, v. Josef SIKORSKI, etc., Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered May 26, 1998, convicting defendant, after nonjury trial, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, and sentencing defendant to a term of six months incarceration and a $1000 fine, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reducing defendant's conviction of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[3][a][ii] ) to aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[2][a][iv] ), vacating the sentence imposed, remitting the matter to Supreme Court for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed.
Contrary to the conclusion reached by Supreme Court, the People failed to establish that defendant committed the crime of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, which requires proof that defendant operated a vehicle with 10 or more license suspensions in effect (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[3][a][ii] ). In this regard, the abstract of defendant's driving record that was introduced into evidence by the People was not properly certified as required by CPLR 4540(b) (see, People v. Smith, 258 A.D.2d 245, 697 N.Y.S.2d 783, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 829, 702 N.Y.S.2d 600, 724 N.E.2d 392).
The evidence was, however, sufficient to sustain a conviction for the lesser included offense of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree, which requires proof that defendant had three or more suspensions in effect (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[2][a][iv] ). We note that this charge was supported by the admission of eight notices of suspension and defendant has not challenged the admissibility of this evidence on appeal.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 22, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 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)