At The Law Office of Siara Ossa, PLLC, we regularly defend motorists throughout New York State who are facing serious traffic charges. Even when a ticket alleges extremely high speeds, the prosecution must still follow the law — including filing the case in the proper court with jurisdiction over the alleged offense.
Recently, our office successfully obtained the dismissal of a high-speed traffic ticket in Albany City Court after filing a motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction over the alleged violation.
This case demonstrates that traffic tickets are still legal cases, and the government must comply with the procedural and jurisdictional rules established under New York law.
The Charges
The motorist in this case was issued a Uniform Traffic Ticket in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(d), specifically alleging a speed of 105 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour zone, an 11-point ticket which would be accompanied by an immediate suspension of the motorist’s license.
The ticket was issued by a New York State Trooper during a traffic stop on Interstate 87. High-speed allegations such as this can carry significant penalties, including:
- Multiple points on a driver’s license
- Substantial fines and state surcharges
- Dramatic increases in insurance premiums
- Possible license suspension depending on the total points accumulated
However, the facts surrounding this traffic stop raised a significant legal issue regarding which court actually had authority to hear the case.
The Jurisdiction Problem
When our office reviewed the ticket, we discovered an important defect.
The traffic ticket alleged that the offense occurred on Interstate 87 in the Town of Guilderland, yet the ticket had been filed in Albany City Court.
Under New York law, courts only have jurisdiction over offenses that occur within their geographic boundaries.
Criminal Procedure Law § 100.55(4) provides that a town court may hear offenses committed within that town. Similarly, a city court generally only has jurisdiction over offenses alleged to have occurred within the city limits.
Because the ticket itself stated that the alleged offense occurred in the Town of Guilderland, Albany City Court lacked jurisdiction over the charge.
Motion to Dismiss Filed
Based on this defect, our office filed a motion seeking dismissal of the traffic charge.
The motion argued that the simplified traffic information was legally defective because the factual allegations demonstrated that the alleged offense occurred outside the jurisdiction of Albany City Court.
Under CPL § 170.30 and § 170.35, a case must be dismissed when the accusatory instrument reveals a jurisdictional defect or other legal impediment to prosecution.
In other words, if the ticket shows on its face that the wrong court is handling the case, the prosecution cannot proceed.
The Result
After reviewing the defense motion and the legal issues raised, Albany City Court dismissed the high-speed traffic charge.This outcome prevented the motorist from facing additional penalties and points stemming from a case that should never have been prosecuted in that court.
Traffic Defense Throughout New York
Although our office is located in Long Beach, New York, we represent motorists throughout New York State, including courts in:
- Albany County
- Orange County
- Nassau County
- Suffolk County
- and surrounding jurisdictions
Many traffic tickets contain legal defects that can lead to dismissal when properly challenged.
Contact a New York Traffic Defense Attorney
If you have been issued a speeding ticket or other traffic charge anywhere in New York, it is important to consult with an attorney who understands the legal defenses available.
At The Law Office of Siara Ossa, PLLC, we carefully examine every case and aggressively pursue dismissals when the law supports it.
📞 Contact our office today to discuss your case and your options by calling or texting 347-733-5612.
www.ossalawny.com
siara@ossalawny.com
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Each case is unique and results depend on the specific facts and legal circumstances involved.