Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eliezer FRIED, Appellant.
ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are affirmed.
In separate simplified traffic informations, defendant was charged with failing to yield the right of way to an emergency vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1144 [a] ), failing to keep right (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1120 [b] ), stopping or standing on a highway blocking a passing lane (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1201 [a] ), and failing to signal (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [d] ), respectively. The proceedings were not recorded by a court stenographer or by an electronic recording device. Following a nonjury trial, the Justice Court found defendant guilty of all charges. Defendant filed an affidavit of errors wherein he alleged, among other things, that he had been denied due process based upon the Justice Court's failure to electronically record the trial proceedings, and that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the “summonses” on the ground that no supporting depositions had been served upon him.
On appeal, defendant contends, among other things, that he was denied due process when the Justice Court failed to electronically record the trial proceedings.
The Justice Court is not designated as a court of record (see People v. Smith, 27 N.Y.3d 643, 649, 36 N.Y.S.3d 856, 57 N.E.3d 48 [2016] ). Although the Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York issued a directive requiring the mechanical recording of all town and village court proceedings (see Administrative Order of Chief Admin. Judge of Cts. AO/245/08 [May 21, 2008] ), the failure to mechanically record defendant's trial involves an administrative matter, not a fundamental right (see Diaz v. State, 155 A.D.3d 1279, 64 N.Y.S.3d 761 [2017] ). Consequently, defendant's due process rights were not violated.
Contrary to defendant's further contention, the Justice Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his oral motion to dismiss the simplified traffic informations on the ground that he was not served with supporting depositions (see CPL 170.30 [1] [a]; 170.45, 210.45 [1]; cf. People v. Nuccio, 78 N.Y.2d 102, 104, 571 N.Y.S.2d 693, 575 N.E.2d 111 [1991]; People v. Sperandeo, 52 Misc. 3d 135[A], 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 51032[U], 2016 WL 3659862 [App. Term, 2d Dept., 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2016] ).
Defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit, or are raised for the first time on appeal and not properly before this court (see People v. Wells, 57 Misc. 3d 21, 23, 62 N.Y.S.3d 877 [App. Term, 2d Dept., 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2017] ).
Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.
BRANDS, J.P., MARANO and TOLBERT, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2017-991 OR CR
Decided: September 27, 2018
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)