PEOPLE v. ORTIZ (2021)

Judgment of conviction (Felicia A. Mennin, J.), rendered June 29, 2016, affirmed.

In view of defendant's knowing waiver of his right to prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [2014]). The instrument, including the certified abstract of defendant's driving record and certified proofs of mailing of prior notices of suspension of defendant's driver's license, was sufficient to establish reasonable cause to believe that defendant operated a motor vehicle on February 19, 2015, “while knowing or having reason to know” that his license was suspended (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[1][a]; see People v Compres, 59 Misc 3d 140[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50617[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1115 [2018]; People v Gerado, 55 Misc 3d 127[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50344[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1079 [2017]). Any alleged hearsay defect in the accusatory instrument was waived by defendant's guilty plea (see People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 362-364 [2000]).

Defendant's present claim that he did not in fact receive the summonses or notices of suspension was a matter to be raised at trial. “Having pleaded guilty to [aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree] on a jurisdictionally valid accusatory instrument, defendant conceded every element of the offense” (People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 577 [2004]).

Per Curiam.

All concur.