NY Supporting Deposition Law
Matisyahu Wolfberg, Esq
New York Traffic ticket lawyer
1) You have no right to request a supporting deposition in dreaded TVB - Traffic Violations Bureau hearing offices. (see here for more info about the TVB
2) you have no right to request a supporting deposition in New Jersey either.
2) In general, more and more police agencies in New York are providing the supporting deposition when they issue the summons, which would make this whole discussion irrelevant. However, there are two considerations here, just because the officer prints out the ticket at the scene, check to see if the Supporting Deposition is attached or not, if not, you still may request one within 30 days of the return date printed on the ticket. Also, even if the supporting deposition is provided, check to see if it is facially sufficient. For example is the accused speed substantiated?3) Timing is everything. The request must be timely made, see the law below:4) the relevant law on this topic from the New York Criminal Procedure is the following: § 100.20 Supporting deposition; definition, form and content. A supporting deposition is a written instrument accompanying or filed in connection with an information, a simplified information, a misdemeanor complaint or a felony complaint, subscribed and verified by a person other than the complainant of such accusatory instrument, and containing factual allegations of an evidentiary character, based either upon personal knowledge or upon information and belief, which supplement those of the accusatory instrument and support or tend to support the charge or charges contained therein. § 100.25 Simplified information; form and content; defendant's right tosupporting deposition; notice requirement.1. A simplified information must be substantially in the formprescribed by the commissioner of motor vehicles, the commissioner ofparks and recreation, or the commissioner of environmental conservation,as the case may be.2. A defendant charged by a simplified information is, upon a timelyrequest, entitled as a matter of right to have filed with the court andserved upon him, or if he is represented by an attorney, upon hisattorney, a supporting deposition of the complainant police officer orpublic servant, containing allegations of fact, based either uponpersonal knowledge or upon information and belief, providing reasonablecause to believe that the defendant committed the offense or offensescharged. To be timely, such a request must, except as otherwise providedherein and in subdivision three of this section, be made before entry ofa plea of guilty to the charge specified and before commencement of atrial thereon, but not later than thirty days after the date thedefendant is directed to appear in court as such date appears upon thesimplified information and upon the appearance ticket issued pursuantthereto. If the defendant's request is mailed to the court, the requestmust be mailed within such thirty day period. Upon such a request, thecourt must order the complainant police officer or public servant toserve a copy of such supporting deposition upon the defendant or hisattorney, within thirty days of the date such request is received by thecourt, or at least five days before trial, whichever is earlier, and tofile such supporting deposition with the court together with proof ofservice thereof. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, where adefendant is issued an appearance ticket in conjunction with the offensecharged in the simplified information and the appearance ticket fails toconform with the requirements of subdivision two of section 150.10, arequest is timely when made not later than thirty days after (a) entryof the defendant's plea of not guilty when he or she has been arraignedin person, or (b) written notice to the defendant of his or her right toreceive a supporting deposition when a plea of not guilty has beensubmitted by mail.3. When at least one of the offenses charged in a simplifiedinformation is a misdemeanor, the court may, upon motion of thedefendant, for good cause shown and consistent with the interest ofjustice, permit the defendant to request a supporting deposition beyondthe thirty day request period set forth in subdivision two of thissection provided, however, that no motion may be brought under thissubdivision after ninety days has elapsed from the date the defendant isdirected to appear in court as such date appears upon the simplifiedinformation and upon the appearance ticket issued pursuant thereto.4. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, where aperson is charged by a simplified information and is served with anappearance ticket as defined in section 150.10, such appearance ticketshall contain the following language: "NOTICE: YOU ARE ENTITLED TORECEIVE A SUPPORTING DEPOSITION FURTHER EXPLAINING THE CHARGES PROVIDEDYOU REQUEST SUCH SUPPORTING DEPOSITION WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATEYOU ARE DIRECTED TO APPEAR IN COURT AS SET FORTH ON THIS APPEARANCETICKET. DO YOU REQUEST A SUPPORTING DEPOSITION?[ ] YES[ ] NO"§ 100.30 Information, misdemeanor complaint, felony complaint,supporting deposition and proof of service of supportingdeposition; verification.1. An information, a misdemeanor complaint, a felony complaint, asupporting deposition, and proof of service of a supporting depositionmay be verified in any of the following manners:(a) Such instrument may be sworn to before the court with which it isfiled.(b) Such instrument may be sworn to before a desk officer in charge ata police station or police headquarters or any of his superior officers.(c) Where such instrument is filed by any public servant following theissuance and service of an appearance ticket, and where by expressprovision of law another designated public servant is authorized toadminister the oath with respect to such instrument, it may be sworn tobefore such public servant.(d) Such instrument may bear a form notice that false statements madetherein are punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to section210.45 of the penal law, and such form notice together with thesubscription of the deponent constitute a verification of theinstrument.(e) Such instrument may be sworn to before a notary public.2. An instrument specified in subdivision one may be verified in anymanner prescribed therein unless in a particular case the courtexpressly directs verification in a particular manner prescribed in saidsubdivision one.
5) If the summons is dismissed for no supporting deposition, often the police will try to reissue it. Here is a case that says they cannot do so, even though the black letter law allows for it.
PEOPLE v. ROSENFELD, 163 Misc.2d 982 (1994) 626 N.Y.S.2d 352 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. NORMAN ROSENFELD, Appellant Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department December 20, 1994
Appeal from the Justice Court of the Town of Wallkill, OrangeC ounty, Ray Shoemaker, J. Norman Rosenfeld, appellant pro se. Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney of Orange County, Goshen (Anthony R. LoBiondo of counsel), for respondent. Page 983
MEMORANDUM. Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, simplified information dismissed and fine remitted. Defendant was issued a simplified traffic information which charged him with speeding in violation of section 1180 (b) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty and the matter was set down for trial on October 21, 1993. On that date the information was dismissed for failure to timely serve and file a supporting deposition. Defendant was immediately issued a new simplified information and a supporting deposition based on the same allegations. Following a trial thereon defendant was found guilty. Since the record in the case at bar fails to disclose any special circumstances, it is this court's opinion that the court abused its discretion when it permitted defendant to be tried based upon the new simplified information and supporting deposition (see, People v Aucello, 146 Misc.2d 417). Such actions, in this court's opinion, defeat the very purpose of the CPL, disregard the interests of judicial economy and, often times, render the defense of traffic matters impracticable. In view of the foregoing, the judgment of conviction should be reversed as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15  [c]; cf., People v Nuccio, 78 N.Y.2d 102). STARK, J.P., COLLINS and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.Page 984