Holding Court: Challenging Parking Tickets
Holding Court is a series by retired Rye City Court Judge Joe Latwin. Latwin retired from the court in December 2022 after thirteen years of service to the City.
What topics do you want addressed by Judge Latwin? Tell us.
By Joe Latwin
You park your car, do your business and when you return, there is a parking ticket on your windshield. Most of the time it is more economical to just pay the ticket. You are not going to pay an attorney $400 an hour when the fine is $25. You don’t want to give up a day of work to go to court. But parking tickets can be challenged. While these challenges are almost never successful, on a rare occasion, they are!
A person got a parking ticket in Sleepy Hollow and went to court. The court analyzed the parking ticket itself to see if it complied with the law. “Even though traffic infractions, including parking offenses, are not crimes, such violations are treated as misdemeanors under the Criminal Procedure Law for procedural and jurisdictional purposes (VTL 155). As such, they must be commenced by way of a valid accusatory instrument as defined in section 100.05 of the CPL.”
Section CPL 1.20(1)(b) provides that “an appearance ticket issued for a parking infraction” can constitute an “accusatory instrument” where:
(i) such ticket is based on personal knowledge or information and belief of the police officer or other public servant who issues the ticket,
(ii) the police officer or other public servant who issues such ticket verifies that false statements made therein are punishable as a class A misdemeanor,
(iii) the infraction or infractions contained therein are stated in detail and not in conclusory terms so as to provide the defendant with sufficient notice including, but not limited, to the applicable provision of law allegedly violated, and the date, time and particular place of the alleged infraction,
(iv) and such ticket contains:
(1) the license plate designation of the ticketed vehicle,
(2) the license plate type of the ticketed vehicle,
(3) the expiration of the ticketed vehicle’s registration,
(4) the make or model of the ticketed vehicle, and
(5) the body type of the ticketed vehicle.
The court then went through the items on the parking ticket. For one item, the court noted, “[T]he front of the document also summarily describes the alleged offense by name. Immediately following the name of the offense is a numerical code without any reference to what law, code, rule or regulation was allegedly violated.”
The court found that the “Appearance Ticket” before the Court, fails to comply with section 1.20(1)(b) of the CPL. “At the very least, the Appearance Ticket does not indicate that it is “based on personal knowledge or information and belief of the police officer or other public servant who issue[d] the ticket” (CPL 1.20[1][b][i], and is not “verifie[d] . . . that false statements made therein are punishable as a class A misdemeanor” (CPL 1.20[1][b][ii]. Although not necessary to the Court’s ultimate determination, the Court also questions whether there is compliance with CPL 1.20(1)(b)(iii) since the alleged violation is advanced in the most conclusory terms without any reference to what law, code, rule or regulation was allegedly violated.
Since the Appearance Ticket did not satisfy the requirements set forth in CPL 1.20 (1) (b), the Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the defendant and dismissed the ticket.
Will this be the case with your parking ticket? You’ll just have to do your homework to see if there is compliance. Of course, municipalities are not passive. If they find an omission, they will update the forms.
