Rather, a judicial hearing officer of the TPVA rendered default judgments against them and imposed fines.Įach defendant appealed, arguing that, under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1806-a, once defendant answered and pleaded not guilty, the TPVA did not have the authority to render a default judgment upon that defendant's failure to timely appear for trial. No attempt was made by the People to try defendants in absentia.
#Town of islip parking ticket trial#
They were each given a document indicating the date and time of the trial with a warning of the repercussions for failure to appear: "THE COURT MAY ISSUE A WARRANT FOR YOUR ARREST OR PROCEED IN YOUR ABSENCE AND YOU WILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY SENTENCE AND/OR FEES IMPOSED, INCLUDING INCARCERATION, AND other penalties permitted by law." Despite the warning notice, defendants failed to timely appear on their respective trial dates. Each defendant timely appeared before the TPVA, pleaded not guilty, and requested a trial. Matter of Dolce, 7 NY3d at 495).ĭefendants in these cases were prosecuted in district court. The rules of evidence apply the People have the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and any appeals go to the Appellate Term (see id. As such, a TPVA has the same judicial authority as the district court to conduct trials, which are presided over by a judicial hearing officer (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1690 -). TPVAs are criminal courts (see CPL 10.10) that operate as an "arm" or a "branch" of the district court of the county in which it is situated (Matter of Dolce, 7 NY3d at 495-498 see General Municipal Law § 371 CPL 350.20 Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1690, ). These agencies were created by the Legislature with authority to handle routine traffic and parking violations, thereby reducing the caseload of the overburdened local courts (see L 1990, ch 496, § 1, as amended by L 2012, ch 388, § 1 General Municipal Law § 370 CPL 350.20 Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1690 Matter of Dolce, 7 NY3d at 495-498). A TPVA, as we have said, is "a hybrid agency that exercises both prosecutorial and adjudicatory responsibilities" (Matter of Dolce v Nassau County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency, 7 NY3d 492, 498 ). The uniform traffic tickets issued to each defendant here instructed the recipient to appear before the District Court of Suffolk County, Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (TPVA), on a specific date and time. We agree with the Appellate Term that entry of a default judgment was not authorized under these circumstances and, therefore, affirm. As a result, a judicial hearing officer with the Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency rendered default judgments against each of them. Both defendants, however, failed to timely appear for trial. Each defendant answered as required, pleaded not guilty to those charges, and demanded a trial. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.ĭefendants in these two appeals were charged with certain traffic infractions. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
0 kommentar(er)
