The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Shilo Bruner, Appellant. (2026)

ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are reversed, on the law, the order dated March 19, 2024 denying defendant's motion to dismiss the simplified traffic informations is vacated, defendant's motion is granted, the simplified traffic informations are dismissed, and the fines, if paid, are remitted.

Defendant was charged in separate simplified traffic informations with "fail[ing] to use [a] designated lane" (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 [c]) and using a portable electronic device while operating a motor vehicle (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-d [1]), respectively, while traveling eastbound on the Southern State Parkway, in Nassau County, on December 21, 2022. The return date set forth on the simplified traffic informations was February 23, 2023. By notice of motion dated December 20, 2023, defendant moved to dismiss the simplified traffic informations based upon the failure to serve supporting depositions that were requested by him on January 5, 2023, but never received. In opposition, the People argued that defendant's motion was not timely as it was not served within 45 days of defendant's request for supporting depositions. In an order dated March 19, 2024, the court (Daniel J. Cotter, J.H.O.) denied defendant's motion without an explanation. On February 5, 2025, immediately prior to the commencement of a nonjury trial, at which defendant appeared pro se and a state trooper testified, the prosecutor requested that the Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 (c) charge be amended to a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 (a) and the court granted the request. At the trial, defendant did not cross-examine the trooper, testify, or proffer any witnesses or other evidence. He orally renewed his motion to dismiss and the court again denied the motion. Following the trial, the court (Adam H. Moser, J.H.O.) found defendant guilty of the charges and imposed sentences.

"A defendant charged by a simplified information is, upon a timely request, entitled as a matter of right to have filed with the court and served upon him, or . . . his attorney, a supporting deposition of the complainant police officer" (CPL 100.25 [2]). "Upon such a request, the court must order the complainant police officer . . . to serve a copy of such supporting deposition upon the defendant or his attorney . . . and to file such supporting deposition with the court together with proof of service thereof" (CPL 100.25 [2]). The failure to timely serve and file a requested supporting deposition renders the simplified information insufficient on its face (see CPL 100.40 [2]), and subjects it to dismissal upon motion (see CPL 170.30 [1] [a]; 170.35 [1] [a]; People v Epakchi, 37 NY3d 39, 45 [2021]; People v Nuccio, 78 NY2d 102, 104 [1991]; People v Vandewater, 83 Misc 3d 131[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 51152[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2024]; People v Kachalsky, 73 Misc 3d 138[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 51159[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2021]).

Here, it is uncontested that defendant made timely requests for supporting depositions as they were made: before entry of guilty pleas to the charges; before commencement of a trial thereon; and not later than 30 days after February 23, 2023, the date he was directed to appear in court as set forth on the simplified information and the appearance ticket (see CPL 100.25 [2]; People v Tyler, 1 NY3d 493, 495-496 [2004]; People v Tarnoff, 62 Misc 3d 127[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51858[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2018]). The complainant officer then had 30 days following the date the requests were received by the court to serve and file supporting depositions (see CPL 100.25 [2]; Tarnoff, 2018 NY Slip Op 51858[U]). It is also uncontested that defendant was not provided with the requested supporting depositions (see People v Concepcion, 55 Misc 3d 150[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50734[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2017]). Consequently, the People failed to demonstrate their compliance with CPL 100.25 (2) (see People v Midgett, 72 Misc 3d 127[A],[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2021]; People v Wagschal, 59 Misc 3d 29 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2018]).

The People opposed defendant's motion to dismiss by contending that the motion was untimely. Generally, a motion to dismiss a simplified traffic information based upon the People's failure to provide a requested supporting deposition must be made in writing, upon notice to the People, and served or filed within 45 days after arraignment and before the commencement of trial, or within such additional time as the court may fix upon an application by the defendant made prior to the entry of judgment (see CPL 170.30 [1] [a]; 170.35 [1] [a]; 170.45, 210.45 [1]; 255.20 [1]; People v Key, 45 NY2d 111 [1978]; People v Fitzgerald, 66 Misc 3d 133[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 52111[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2019]; People v Alese, 45 Misc 3d 135[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51733[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2014]). Here, there was no arraignment (see CPL 170.10 [1] [a]; Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1805, 1806, 1807). Consequently, the only time period by which to measure whether defendant's motion was timely is if it was made before the commencement of trial, which it was. Thus, defendant's timely motion should have been granted (see Midgett, 2021 NY Slip Op 50588[U]; Tarnoff, 2018 NY Slip Op 51858[U]; Wagschal, 59 Misc 3d 29).

Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are reversed, the order dated March 19, 2024 denying defendant's motion to dismiss the simplified traffic informations is vacated, defendant's motion is granted, and the simplified traffic informations are dismissed.

WALSH, J.P., VAZQUEZ-DOLES and LICCIONE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: June 4, 2026