Summary
In Henig v State of New York (122 A.D.2d 250 [2d Dept 1986]), the Appellate Division stated that "[t]he arresting officer sufficiently established the accuracy of the radar device by using two tuning forks and an internal calibration test before and after stopping the petitioner".
Summary of this case from People v. FarrellOpinion
July 28, 1986
Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.
The respondent sustained its burden of proving that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (d). The arresting officer sufficiently established the accuracy of the radar device by using two tuning forks and an internal calibration test before and after stopping the petitioner (see, Matter of Graf v Foschio, 102 A.D.2d 891). Furthermore, since the officer testified that his visual estimates had been proven to be within 3 to 5 miles per hour of actual vehicle speeds, his estimate of the vehicle's speed in the case at bar would have been sufficient to confirm even an untested radar reading (see, People v Heyser, 2 N.Y.2d 390, 393). Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.