You are here: / / THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU (TPVA) IS A CRIMINAL COURT WHICH...
, ,

THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU (TPVA) IS A CRIMINAL COURT WHICH CANNOT ISSUE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WHEN A DEFENDANT FAILS TO APPEAR FOR A TRAFFIC-INFRACTION TRIAL; IN CONTRAST, A TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS BUREAU (TVB) IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, NOT A CRIMINAL COURT, AND MAY ISSUE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Bureau (TPVA) is a criminal court which cannot issue a default judgment when a defendant who has pled not guilty does not show up for a traffic-infraction trial. On the other hand, a Traffic Violations Bureau (TVA) is not a criminal court and may issue a default judgment:

Defendants in these cases were prosecuted in district court … . Each defendant timely appeared before the TPVA, pleaded not guilty, and requested a trial. They were each given a document indicating the date and time of the trial with a warning of the repercussions for failure to appear: “THE COURT MAY ISSUE A WARRANT FOR YOUR ARREST OR PROCEED IN YOUR ABSENCE AND YOU WILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY SENTENCE AND/OR FEES IMPOSED, INCLUDING INCARCERATION, AND other penalties permitted by law.” Despite the warning notice, defendants failed to timely appear on their respective trial dates. No attempt was made by the People to try defendants in absentia. Rather, a judicial hearing officer of the TPVA rendered default judgments against them and imposed fines. …

The issue before us is whether a TPVA judicial hearing officer is authorized under the Vehicle and Traffic Law to render a default judgment against a defendant charged with a traffic infraction who first enters a timely not guilty plea but then fails to appear for trial. We answer that question in the negative. …

Unlike TPVAs, … the TVB is not a criminal court … . It is … an administrative tribunal where, in cities having a population of one million or more, traffic infractions may be disposed of in an administrative hearing held before a hearing officer appointed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles … . In contrast to trials conducted before TPVAs, hearings before the TVB are not governed by the CPL … . People v Iverson, 2021 NY Slip Op 03347, CtApp 5-27-21

 

You might also like
Evidence of a Defendant’s Silence In Response to Questions Posed by the Police Cannot Be Introduced in the People’s Case-In-Chief
Where Defendant Is Represented on a Pending Charge and Seeks Leniency by Cooperation with Police in the Investigation of An Unrelated Offense, the Police Cannot Question the Defendant About the Unrelated Offense in the Absence of Counsel Unless Defendant Affirmatively Waives His Right to Counsel In Counsel’s Presence
any failure by defense counsel to move to suppress identification testimony did not rise to ineffective assistance.
SUBCONTRACTOR DAL HAD ENTERED CONTRACTS FOR THIS RENOVATION PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, JRM, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, ROCKEFELLER; PLAINTIFF, WHO DID NOT WORK FOR DAL, WITHOUT DAL’S PERMISSION, KNOWING THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE, USED A DEFECTIVE LADDER OWNED BY DAL; THE LADDER WOBBLED AND PLAINTIFF FELL; THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSES IN DAL’S CONTRACTS WITH JRM AND ROCKEFELLER DID NOT APPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (CT APP). ​
“EXEMPT EMPLOYEES” UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW ARE TERMINABLE AT WILL; A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTS TO MAKE AN EXEMPT EMPLOYEE TERMINABLE FOR CAUSE IS UNENFORCEABLE (CT APP).
THE DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CAN BE APPLIED TO BYPASS THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS IF THE RESULT OF ENFORCING THE STATUTE WOULD BE UNCONSCIONABLE, THE RESULT HERE WAS NOT UNCONSCIONABLE. ​
Questions Concerning the Presumption that a Will Not Found After a Thorough Search Had Been Revoked (by Destruction) Should Have Been Resolved Before the Will Was Admitted to Probate—Matter Remitted to Surrogate’s Court
A Third-Party’s Removal of a Safety Device Did Not Require Summary Judgment In Favor of the Manufacturer, Even though the Safety Device Would Have Prevented the Injury/There Was Evidence the Safety Device Itself Was Defective, Leading to Its Removal by the Third Party/Therefore, the “Substantial Modification” Defense Did Not Insulate the Manufacturer from Liability as a Matter of Law

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ONCE THE APPELLATE DIVISION DECIDED THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS ACTED RATIONALLY... NO PROOF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS WITHIN DEFENDANT’S REACH WHEN...