The People of the State of New York v. Jose Fernandez, Defendant. (2026)

I. Introduction

The defendant is charged in the above docket with violating various sections of the Vehicle and Traffic Law ("VTL") for an incident alleged to have occurred on or about March 30, 2026. Through his motion dated September 18, 2026, defendant requested dismissal of the accusatory instrument on the grounds that it is facially insufficient. Alternatively, he sought preclusion or suppression of evidence. Upon review and consideration of each party's submissions, the court file, and relevant legal authorities, the Court issues the below Decision & Order.

II. Facial Insufficiency

An information must contain non hearsay allegations that, if accepted as true, establish every element of the offense(s) charged and the defendant's commission thereof (People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 228-229 [2009]). If it does not, then it is jurisdictionally defective (id., at 229). An information serves the same role in a misdemeanor prosecution that an indictment serves in a felony prosecution (People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [2014]). This "prima facie" standard is "not nearly so stringent as the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required to convict or even the legally sufficient evidence necessary to survive a motion to dismiss" (People v Guaman, 22 NY3d 678, 681 [2014]). "So long as the factual allegations of an information give an accused notice sufficient to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed they should be given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 361 [2000]).

All reasonable inferences are to be drawn in the People's favor, and the facts need not "negate all possible defenses or make assertions responsive to every interpretation of facts potentially favorable to the defendant" (People v Minnock, 86 Misc 3d 1207[A], 2025 NY Slip Op 50882[U] [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2025]; People v King, 83 Misc 3d 29 [App Term 2024]). Courts are also to interpret the Penal Law "according to the fair import of their terms to promote justice and effect the objects of the law" (People v Ditta, 52 NY2d 657, 660 [1981] [quoting Penal Law § 5.00]). This review is confined to the four corners of the information and or annexed supporting deposition(s) (People v Thomas, 4 NY3d 143, 146 [2005]).

The pertinent portion of the accusatory instrument at issue states:

"I observed, via surveillance footage, the defendant driving a motor vehicle, namely a tan 2012 Buick Enclave bearing New York license plate KSP4919, in that the key was in the ignition, the engine was running and the defendant was behind the wheel, on a public highway at the above location. I further observed the defendant rear end another vehicle."

The next paragraph continues:

"I know that the defendant was intoxicated because I observed that the defendant had watery eyes and had a moderate odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath."

Defendant urged this Court to find that the accusatory instrument is insufficient because the sworn allegations do not establish the date or time that the defendant operated a vehicle in an intoxicated or impaired state. Next, defendant argued that the accusatory instrument improperly relies on an unauthenticated video. In opposition, the People argued that the video's authentication is a trial issue. Further, they highlighted how the information specifies "[o]n or about March 30, 2026, at approximately 12:01 AM, in front of 1606 Amsterdam Ave.",¹ and that the information "need not indicate the date and time stamp on the surveillance in order to be facially sufficient. [The officer] signed the document, swearing under penalty of perjury, that he observed the defendant operating a motor vehicle at the time, place, and location named in the information ".

In Rodriguez, Kings County Criminal Court found that an accusatory instrument was facially insufficient because it did not allege a timeframe as to when that defendant was driving, or facts that suggested defendant drove recently (People v Rodriguez, 87 Misc 3d 1245[A], 2025 NY Slip Op 51905[U] [Crim Ct, Kings County 2025]). There, the precise language challenged was, "The deponent states that at the above time and place, which is a public roadway, the deponent observed the defendant standing next to [his car in a bus lane]. The deponent is informed by the defendant's own statements that [he] was driving the above-described vehicle" (id.). Because the court could not determine "when or where" the defendant "was driving," the court found that operation was not established, and refused to speculate as to the meaning of defendant's statement (id.). Moreover, in Patten, the deponent officers observed the defendant's alleged criminal conduct during a larger fight exclusively through video, but they did not otherwise link the video to the date or location of the other parts of the incident that they alleged they viewed firsthand (People v Patten, 32 Misc 3d 440, 445-446 [City Ct 2011]). There, Long Beach City Court found that this omission was "crucial," and without it, "there is nothing connecting the defendant to the events [the deponents] personally observed " (id., at 445).² Accordingly, the accusatory instrument was dismissed as facially insufficient (id., at 446).

In this case, contrary to the People's argument, the factual basis of the accusatory instrument did not reference the date or time of the actual events captured within the surveillance footage, i.e. when defendant operated his vehicle in an intoxicated or impaired state (see e.g. Patten, 32 Misc 3d at 445 [explaining the officers relied on the video for their knowledge of the alleged criminal conduct but did not indicate knowledge of the time, date, or location of the events depicted therein]). That same defect is present here: the charging document did not identify when the events depicted in that footage occurred. Thus, the date and time of the alleged criminal conduct with which defendant is charged is vague and uncertain.

Separately, the accusatory instrument leaps from the officer's observations made via video surveillance to those made of the defendant in person, but it lacks any context that would otherwise clarify or connect this sequence of events. Though it is well settled that operation may be established circumstantially (People v Booden, 69 NY2d 185 [1987]; People v Persaud, 49 Misc 3d 1206[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51494[U] [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2015]), this abrupt transition is insufficient. As a result, the Court cannot reasonably infer that the video surveillance that captured defendant operating the vehicle occurred on the same day and approximate time as the officer's firsthand observations of the defendant's alleged intoxication/impairment.

For these reasons, the Court finds the instrument to be facially insufficient (Patten, 32 Misc 3d at 445 [recognizing absolute precision is not required while reiterating that a defendant must be given proper notice]; People v Rodriguez, 87 Misc 3d 1245[A], 2025 NY Slip Op 51905[U] [Crim Ct, Kings County 2025] [concluding vague language in the pleading may not be overcome by a court's speculation]).

III. Conclusion

For the above reasons, the defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument for facial insufficiency is hereby GRANTED. The Court need not reach defendant's remaining points of contention because dismissal is dispositive.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: October 21, 2026

New York, New York

FOOTNOTES

1.   For clarity, the specific date and time alleged is found above the alleged factual basis for the charges.

2.   For the same reasons articulated in Patten, this Court finds that an evidentiary foundation was not needed for the video's inclusion in the accusatory instrument (see Patten, 32 Misc 3d at 444).

Janet McDonnell, J.