Source: https://www.newyorkcriminalattorneyblog.com/appearance_tickets_in_new_york_1/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 05:57:31+00:00

Document:
In prior blogs I have explained that where the police choose to issue an arrestee an appearance ticket instead of detaining that person until they can see a judge, the police must thereafter file a sufficient accusatory instrument with the court on or before the return date listed in the appearance ticket. What action the courts can take where the required accusatory instrument has not been filed before the return date has not been definitively decided by the courts with some holding the court may dismiss the appearance ticket, while others have held the court must dismiss and still others have held the court cannot dismiss.
The differing holds are discussed in the following three sections.
Numerous cases are in accord. See e.g., People v. Apollo, 10 Misc.3d 135A (App. Term 2nd Dept. 2005)(“Since there is no indication upon this record that the People filed a proper accusatory instrument with the court (see CPL 150.50), the court never acquired jurisdiction and dismissal of the summons relative to said charge is mandated.”); People v. O’Shea, 2003 NY Slip Op 51102U; 2003 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 948 (App. Term 2nd Dept. 2003)(finding that a parking ticket is the “functional equivalent” of an appearance ticket, the court held that the case “must be dismissed” because a proper accusatory instrument had not been timely filed with the court); People v. Lowry, 184 Misc. 2d 306 (App. Term 2nd Dept. 2000)(the People’s failure to file a proper accusatory instrument mandates reversal of defendant’s conviction and dismissal of the appearance ticket); People v. Peak Carting, Inc., 11 Misc.3d 4, 5 (App. Term 2nd Dept. 2005)(“This court has consistently held that after issuance of an appearance ticket, the failure to file with the court a proper accusatory instrument mandates reversal and dismissal of the summons.”).
The facts in People v. Consolidated Edison Co., 161 Misc. 2d 907 (N.Y. City Crim Ct. 1994) are similar to those encountered by countless individuals who are issued appearance tickets in New York City – their “paperwork” was not ready when they appeared on the appearance ticket return date. In the Consolidated Edison case, appearance tickets charging violations of the NYC Administrative Code were issued to the defendant (Consolidated Edison) and made returnable to the Criminal Court, Summons Appearance Part. Id. at 908.
Informations were subsequently filed, and the cases were placed on the court’s calendar for a newly scheduled date. Defendant filed motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 909. More specifically, defendant argued “that the failure of law enforcement agents to file accusatory instruments by the return date of the appearance ticket renders the court without jurisdiction.” Id. at 908.
See also People v. Giusti, 176 Misc.2d 377, 381 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1998)(“A Criminal Court has no statutory authority to dismiss an accusatory instrument upon a failure to adhere to the requirements for desk appearance tickets in CPL 150.10.”); People v. Brisotti, 167 Misc.2d 688, 691 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1995)(dismissal for an untimely filing of an accusatory instrument is not an available remedy under CPL 150.50); People v. Fysekis, 164 Misc.2d 627, 630 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1995)(“Where the People do not come forward with an accusatory instrument by the return date of the DAT, even though CPL 150.50 states that they must, there is no basis for the court to dismiss the action where, as here, there is no accusatory instrument before the court.”).
In People v. Hausch, 187 Misc. 2d 202 (N.Y. J. Ct. 2001), the Tuckahoe Justice Court held that dismissal of an information is not required where the People fail to comply with the requirement that the information be filed at or before the return date of the appearance ticket. However, this decision is at odds with the numerous Appellate Term 2nd Department decisions cited above which are binding on the Tuckahoe Justice Court.
Finally, the Fourth Department has held dismissal is discretionary where a defendant appears in court as directed in an appearance ticket but no accusatory instrument has been filed by the officer as required by CPL 150.50(1). In Snead v. Aegis Secur., Inc., 105 A.D.2d 1059 (4th Dept. 1984), the Rochester City Court had dismissed an appearance ticket in an underlying, related criminal action against Robert Snead because an accusatory instrument had not yet been filed before Snead appeared in that court as directed in the appearance ticket. In Snead, the city court dismissed the very day the defendant appeared as instructed. The city court didn’t make him wait for hours or give him a new date.
Accordingly, where the appearance ticket is issued will determine if the court must, can’t or may dismiss the appearance ticket and underlying charges should the police officer fail to file an accusatory instrument with the court on or before the return date.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.