People v. Zapletova

WILLIAM M. SIMON, J. This court must first determine if it had jurisdiction to conduct a trial in this matter over a "traffic infraction" allegedly committed in the Village of Tannersville (a village with its own court) and within a private vehicle that was on a trip that commenced in the Town of Hunter, traveled through the village where the offense was allegedly committed (not within 100 yards of its boundary with the Town of Hunter) and the trip then continued back into the Town of Hunter without stopping. No one raised any issue of jurisdiction or venue during the trial. The testimony and evidence were as follows: The asterisk indicates material in brackets that is not the wording of section 20.40 of the Criminal Procedure Law but the required insertion of words when applying the literal language of section 20.50 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The only conclusion possible is that when an offense is committed within a private passenger car it is prosecutable in any town, or village within the same county that the car passed through during that trip. There can be no question that in the case at bar where the offense undisputably was committed within a private vehicle that was on a trip that began in the Town of Hunter (Onteora Park) in fact traveled in the officer's continuous view through the Village of Tannersville and then back into the Town within a single County, wherein it was stopped, fits squarely within the language conferring jurisdiction in both the Town and the Village Courts. I therefore conclude that this case is clearly within the jurisdiction of and prosecutable in the Town of Hunter Court based upon the fact that jurisdiction of the Town Court is derived through sections 20.50, 20.40 and 100.10 (10) of the Criminal Procedure Law that permits prosecution under particular circumstances as outlined in section 20.40 (4) (g). Since this court did in fact have jurisdiction to conduct the trial, the court finds the defendant guilty based upon the credible evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, of failure to stop and yield at a red light; the defendant is sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and a mandatory surcharge of $35.