Opinion
No. 2011–1310 OR CR.
2012-12-10
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Moses SCHNITZLER, Appellant.
Present: LaCAVA, J.P., IANNACCI and LaSALLE, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Wallkill, Orange County (Joseph Owen, J.), rendered April 1, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, convicted defendant of speeding.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Following a nonjury trial in the Justice Court, defendant was convicted of speeding (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180[d] ). On appeal, defendant contends that the proof was legally insufficient to support his conviction.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621 [1983] ), we are of the opinion that the proof was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of speeding beyond a reasonable doubt. Radar readings are generally admissible and may independently be sufficient to prove a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(d) if there is reasonable proof of the device's accuracy ( see People v. Dusing, 5 N.Y.2d 126, 128 [1959] ). A radar device's accuracy may be established by proof that a police officer, who is a qualified radar operator, conducted tests indicating that the radar was functioning properly at the time of the incident ( see Matter of Graf v. Foschio, 102 A.D.2d 891 [1984];People v. Goess, 34 Misc.3d 152[A], 2012 N.Y. Slip Op 50303[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]; People v. Susana, 29 Misc.3d 144[A], 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 52218[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010] ). Calibration records are not needed to establish the accuracy of a radar device ( People v. Goess, 34 Misc.3d 152[A], 2012 N.Y. Slip Op 50303[U]; People v. Susana, 29 Misc.3d 144[A], 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 52218[U] ). Here, the People introduced into evidence the state trooper's radar operation certificate, issued by the New York State Police. Furthermore, the trooper testified that he had conducted the appropriate calibration tests on the radar device. Thus, the trooper's testimony that, as a qualified operator, he had used a properly calibrated radar device to measure defendant's speed at a rate of 82 miles per hour in a posted 65 mile per hour zone, sufficed independently to prove a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(d) ( see People v. Dusing, 5 N.Y.2d at 128;People v. Goess, 34 Misc.3d 152[A], 2012 N.Y. Slip Op 50303[U]; People v. Susana, 29 Misc.3d 144[A], 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 52218 [U] ).
Moreover, even if the proof of the calibration of the radar was inadequate, a reading from an untested radar unit, coupled with a qualified officer's visual estimate, suffices to prove the offense, particularly if the visual estimate sufficiently corroborated the radar measurement to render “any perceived deficiency in the radar evidence ... of no consequence” (People v. Knight, 72 N.Y.2d 481, 488 [1988];see also People v. Goess, 34 Misc.3d 152[A], 2012 N.Y. Slip Op 50303[U]; People v. Susana, 29 Misc.3d 144[A], 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 52218[U]; People v. Ramaker, 9 Misc.3d 131[A], 2005 N.Y. Slip Op 51592[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005] ). Thus, the trooper's testimony, that he had received training to visually estimate the rate of speed of a vehicle and that he had determined defendant's rate of speed to be 80 miles per hour, which was nearly identical to the 82 mile per hour rate that the radar unit had measured, was sufficient to prove a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(d).
Defendant's other contentions raised on appeal have been considered and found to be without merit ( see People v. Neal, 24 Misc.3d 130[A], 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 51347[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009] ).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.