| People v Milk (Kristen) |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 50044(U) [18 Misc 3d 130(A)] |
| Decided on January 3, 2008 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from an order of the Justice Court of the Town of Wallkill, Orange County (Ray
Shoemaker, J.), entered September 8, 2006. The order dismissed the simplified traffic
information.
Order reversed on the law, simplified traffic information reinstated and matter remanded to the court below for all further proceedings.
In this prosecution based on a simplified traffic information, defendant appeared for trial on September 8, 2006. The court dismissed the simplified traffic information on the ground that the People failed to prosecute the matter. The trial court has no statutory or inherent authority to dismiss a criminal proceeding for failure to prosecute (see People v Douglass, 60 NY2d 194, 206 [1983]; People v Tartaglione, 5 Misc 3d 126[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51190[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). We further note that the District Attorney may delegate the prosecution of petty crimes and offenses to police officers (see People v Soddano, 86 NY2d 727 [1995]; People v Garcha, 10 Misc 3d 136[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 52130[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). Therefore, the order dismissing the simplified traffic information is reversed and said accusatory instrument is reinstated.
Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 3, 2008