PEOPLE v. CANTON (2020)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Stephanie Zaro, J.), rendered March 26, 2018, convicting him of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree and unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was charged with, inter alia, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree and unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle on the ground that he was driving while his driver license was suspended. At the jury trial, the People introduced into evidence the defendant's Department of Motor Vehicles (hereinafter DMV) abstract, which included, inter alia, the underlying reasons for the defendant's suspended driver license. The People also adduced testimony from a DMV witness regarding the bases for the defendant's open suspensions. Thereafter, the jury convicted the defendant of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[1][a]) and unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509[1]). The defendant appeals.

The defendant's contention that evidence about his DMV abstract should not have been admitted because it included Molineux evidence (see People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286) is preserved for appellate review only as to the evidence regarding open suspensions (see CPL 470.05[2]; see also People v. Barnett, 163 A.D.3d 700, 702, 80 N.Y.S.3d 461). The evidence regarding open suspensions was properly admitted as it was relevant to show the defendant's knowledge that his driver license was suspended (see People v. Frumusa, 29 N.Y.3d 364, 370, 57 N.Y.S.3d 103, 79 N.E.3d 495; People v. Osier, 17 A.D.3d 609, 609, 795 N.Y.S.2d 59).

In any event, any error was harmless because proof of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming, even without reference to the defendant's DMV abstract or to the testimony of the DMV witness regarding the open suspensions, and there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error (see People v. Arafet, 13 N.Y.3d 460, 467, 892 N.Y.S.2d 812, 920 N.E.2d 919; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787). The defendant's own witness admitted that she knew that the defendant's driver license was suspended because she was aware that he had received notices in the mail and because the defendant had told her his driver license had been suspended. In addition, the arresting police officer and the defendant's witness each testified that the defendant told the arresting officer at the time of the stop that the defendant's driver license had been suspended.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

DILLON, J.P., MALTESE, DUFFY and BARROS, JJ., concur.