Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas C. Bowman, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1994-11-29
Citations: 84 N.Y.2d 923
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas C. Bowman, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 923–925

Head Matter:
[644 NE2d 1366, 620 NYS2d 810]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas C. Bowman, Appellant.
Argued October 21, 1994;
decided November 29, 1994
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Joseph A. Fiorella, Buffalo, for appellant.
John C. Grennell, Town Attorney of Town of Brant, Angola, for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the County Court should be affirmed.
In 1990, defendant was charged in 20 separate prosecutor's informations with violations of General Municipal Law § 136 regulating conduct of junkyards. On April 27, 1992, while the matter was still pending, yet another information was served on defendant, alleging some of the same offenses charged in the previous informations. Defendant was, however, never arraigned on the succeeding instrument. After moving unsuccessfully for dismissal pursuant to CPL 100.50 of all but one of the instruments filed prior to April 27, 1992, defendant was convicted of 20 counts of violating the General Municipal Law.
CPL 100.50 (1) provides that upon the filing of a subsequent information, the first instrument is "superseded by the second and, upon the defendant's arraignment upon the latter, the count of the first instrument charging such offense must be dismissed by the court." Defendant contends that dismissal of all preceding instruments was required upon the filing of the April 1992 information, and that his conviction on the preceding informations was therefore a nullity. Because defendant was never arraigned on the succeeding information, however, no statutory obligation arose to dismiss the preceding instruments that charged the same offenses. Accordingly, defendant's conviction upon the earlier informations was not jurisdictionally barred.
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and conclude them to be without merit.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.