PEOPLE v. STOUTE (2018)

Judgment of conviction (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered July 1, 2015, affirmed.

The accusatory instrument charging defendant with unlicensed driving (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509[1] ) was not jurisdictionally defective. Sworn police allegations that at a specified time and street location, defendant was observed operating a motor vehicle, and that a computer check run by the officer of the records of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles revealed that defendant's license was suspended for failure to pay a fine, were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish the elements of the offense, including that defendant was not “duly licensed” to operate the vehicle she was driving (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509[1]; see also People v. Chatelain, 65 AD3d 930 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 886 [2010]; People v. Pate, 52 AD3d 1118 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 740 [2008]; People v. Foster, 57 Misc 3d 136[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51272[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1060 [2017] ). Contrary to defendant's present contention, allegations that defendant knew or should have known that her license was suspended or revoked were not required to support the offense of unlicensed driving (see People v. Fields, 58 Misc 3d 133[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51786[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2017]; see also People v. Pacer, 6 NY3d 504, 513 [2006] ).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.