PEOPLE v. SCOTT (2024)

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument is denied without prejudice, the accusatory instrument is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Justice Court for all further proceedings.

Defendant was charged in a simplified traffic information with leaving the scene of an incident without reporting (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600 [2] [a]). At an appearance on February 14, 2024, the Justice Court (Jay S. Bielat, J.) noted on the record that it “think[s] that this is a civil case looking for criminal aspect to it,” that it “[did not] see the elements being made out,” and that it would “accept [defendant's] oral motion to dismiss.” The court then asked defendant's counsel whether he had “an oral motion to dismiss,” and he replied “motion to dismiss.” The People objected to the motion on the ground that it was not in writing. The Justice Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss over the People's objection.

It is well settled that a motion to dismiss an accusatory instrument “must be made in writing and upon reasonable notice to the [P]eople” (CPL 210.45 [1]; see CPL 170.45; People v Jennings, 69 NY2d 103, 113 [1986]; People v Lawrence, 64 NY2d 200, 203-204 [1984]; People v Burnett, 81 Misc 3d 144[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 50195[U], *1-2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2024]; People v Hunter, 36 Misc 3d 138[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51440[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]). As the People specifically objected to the motion on the ground that it was not in writing, “they did not waive their entitlement to written notice of the motion” (Hunter, 2012 NY Slip Op 51440[U], *1; see Jennings, 69 NY2d at 113; People v McKiver, 24 Misc 3d 78, 79 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Consequently, the Justice Court should not have considered defendant's oral motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, the order is reversed, defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument is denied without prejudice, the accusatory instrument is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Justice Court for all further proceedings.

DRISCOLL, J.P., WALSH and GOLDBERG-VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.