PEOPLE v. FURLAN (2021)

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was charged in a simplified traffic information with failure to stop at a stop sign (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 [a]) and entered a plea of not guilty by certified mail. During her first appearance in court, defendant, represented by counsel, indicated that a pretrial conference had been conducted, but that a plea agreement could not be reached. A nonjury trial was conducted that same day, to which defendant did not object. Following the presentation of evidence and summations by the attorneys, the court found defendant guilty of the charged traffic infraction and sentenced her to pay a fine.

Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that, by proceeding to trial on the first appearance date, the Justice Court ran afoul of the statutory requirement that, upon receipt of a properly mailed plea of not guilty to a traffic infraction charge, as in this case, the “court shall advise the violator, by first class mail, of an appearance at which no testimony shall be taken. If the motorist requests a trial, then the court shall set a trial date on a date subsequent to the date of the initial appearance and shall notify the defendant of the date by first class mail” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1806). Although conceding that this issue is unpreserved, defendant asserts that the failure to satisfy Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1806 constitutes a jurisdictional defect, for which preservation is not required. We disagree.

The

“categories of procedural defects in criminal cases that were non-waivable and, thus, reviewable as an error of law without preservation at the trial level ․ were the instances where the court lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter; and where such jurisdiction exists, a change [ ] of the mode of proceeding [ ] so extensive as to convert the case from a judicial proceeding into a mere arbitration” (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 365 [2000]).

Here, the Justice Court's subject matter jurisdiction was clear and uncontested, and the averred statutory violation did not negatively impact the mode of proceedings in any capacity. We therefore decline to address defendant's sole, unpreserved appellate contention in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

GARGUILO, J.P., EMERSON and DRISCOLL, JJ., concur.