In People v. Stephens, 177 Misc.2d 819 (Crim Ct, Kings County 1988) the defendant was accused of operating a motor vehicle with a forged license plate and a suspended license. In finding the complaint to be facially sufficient, the court held that the defendant's inability to produce on demand proof of registration and insurance in contravention of VTL 319 and 401 coupled with the alleged forged license plate and his disregard of the statutory requirement to be duly licensed constituted circumstantial proof of defendant's scienter. But, there are no allegations contained in the instant complaint which indicate that defendant was unable to produce a driver's license or proof of registration to the police officer. The court in People v. Roa, 8 Misc 3d 333 (Crim Ct, NY County 2005) agreed with the analysis set forth in Stephens to the extent that the statutory scheme of VTL 319 and 401 imposes duties upon the owner of a motor vehicle. The court explained that: as a driver, unlike a passenger, the defendant is presumed to have dominion and control over and responsibility for its operation. It is not reasonable to infer, however, based upon the regulatory scheme laid out in the Vehicle and Traffic Law that prohibits an owner from operating a motor vehicle without proper registration, that a driver, who exercises dominion and control of the vehicle, knows that the registration sticker is forged. Id. at 2-3.