Opinion
2005-1443 DCR.
Decided September 25, 2006.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Hyde Park, Dutchess County (John M. Kennedy, J.), rendered December 28, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of speeding.
Judgment of conviction affirmed.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and LIPPMAN, JJ
The uncorroborated opinion testimony of a qualified police officer as to his or her visual estimate that defendant's vehicle's rate of speed exceeded the speed limit by 20 miles an hour is legally sufficient to support a conviction for violating section 1180 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law since "the variance between the estimated speed and maximum permissible speed is sufficiently wide so that [the factfinder] may be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant exceeded the permissible limit" ( People v. Olsen, 22 NY2d 230, 232; People v. Heyser, 2 NY2d 390, 394; People v. Ramaker, 9 Misc 3d 131 [A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51592[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists]; People v. Crawford, 5 Misc 3d 137 [A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51558[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists]). Further, the opinion evidence was supported by proof of a nearly identical reading by a laser device, the calibration and accuracy of which was established at trial ( e.g. Matter of Clarke v. Martinez, 14 AD3d 612, 613; People v. Heting Chu, 2002 NY Slip Op 40439[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists]). Defendant's claim that the laser device might have detected the speed of a different vehicle "is speculation and the court was entitled to credit the officer's testimony to the contrary" ( People v. Earley, 7 Misc 3d 139 [A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50873[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists]).
Viewed in the light most favorable to the People ( People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620), the evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction. It cannot be said that the testimony of the prosecuting officer was so marred by material discrepancies ( People v. Pazmino, 179 AD2d 385, 386) or inherent improbabilities as to be "incredible as a matter of law" ( People v. Gruttola, 43 NY2d 116, 122; see also People v. Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). In the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
Defendant's argument regarding the People's failure to prove that the posted 45 mile per hour speed limit conformed to federally-mandated engineering and use requirements is likewise without merit. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1110 (c) and (d) creates "a legal presumption that a speed ordinance has been properly enacted when signs and traffic devices in approximate conformity with the Vehicle and Traffic Law have been erected" ( People v. Bradfute, 49 Misc 2d 1092, 1093 [County Ct, Westchester County 1966]; see People v. Kesten, 15 NY2d 857). Defendant's proof did not establish, by competent evidence, that the posted speed limit violated those requirements.
Rudolph, P.J., Angiolillo and Lippman, JJ., concur.