Opinion
570033/20
01-04-2022
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Marco VAQUERO, Defendant-Respondent.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Paul A. Anderson of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Paul A. Anderson of counsel), for appellant.
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Hagler, Silvera, JJ.
Per Curiam.
Order (Myrna Socorro, J.), dated January 3, 2019, reversed, on the law, defendant's speedy trial motion denied, information reinstated and matter remitted to Criminal Court for further proceedings.
By accusatory instrument dated September 3, 2018, defendant was charged with third-degree assault and second-degree harassment. On December 11, 2018, defendant moved to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, based upon his claim that the instrument was not timely converted to an information in the absence of a "proper" certificate of translation. The court granted the motion, finding that the People were never ready for trial because the certificate of translation that was filed did not comport with CPLR 2101 because it "was not notarized" and did not state the basis of the translator's "fluency in order to translate the document to the complaining witness." The People appeal and we now reverse.
The accusatory instrument needed no certificate of translation for conversion to an information. The face of the complaint, signed by the complainant Elizondo Vaquero, gave no indication that this document was translated for the complainant, or that he failed to read, have read to him, or understand the English-language document (see People v. Slade , 37 N.Y.3d 127, 138, 148 N.Y.S.3d 413, 170 N.E.3d 1189 [2021], affg 63 Misc. 3d 161[A], 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 50893[U], 2019 WL 2402155 [App. Term, 1st Dept. 2019] ; Matter of Edward B. , 80 N.Y.2d 458, 591 N.Y.S.2d 962, 606 N.E.2d 1353 [1992] ; Matter of Shaquana S. , 9 A.D.3d 466, 466-467, 780 N.Y.S.2d 179 [2004] ). Although a certificate of translation was filed "it was not referenced or incorporated in that document and therefore the certificate cannot be used to create a ‘facial defect’ otherwise undetectable on the face of the accusatory instrument" ( People v. Slade , 37 N.Y.3d at 138, 148 N.Y.S.3d 413, 170 N.E.3d 1189 ).
In any event, the Court of Appeals has now made clear that "the CPL does not require a certificate of translation, let alone a certificate in any particular form, to create a facially sufficient instrument" ( id. at 139, 148 N.Y.S.3d 413, 170 N.E.3d 1189 ). In situations where an accusatory instrument indicates that an accurate, verbatim translation occurred, and the complainant adopted the statement as his own by signing the instrument after the translation, "no further documentation, including a certificate of translation, [is] necessary for conversion" ( id. at 141, 148 N.Y.S.3d 413, 170 N.E.3d 1189 ). CPLR 2101(b) cannot be used to override those specific requirements (see Slade at 139, 148 N.Y.S.3d 413, 170 N.E.3d 1189 ; People v. Douglas , 162 A.D.3d 1212, 1214, 79 N.Y.S.3d 352 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1147, 83 N.Y.S.3d 428, 108 N.E.3d 502 [2018] ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
All concur.