People v Stritmater (C.M.)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Stritmater (C.M.) 2004 NY Slip Op 51562(U) Decided on December 9, 2004 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 9, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: McCABE, P.J., RUDOLPH and ANGIOLILLO, JJ.
2004-477 OR CR

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

C.M. STRITMATER, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Justice Court, Town of Greenville, Orange County (G. Wieboldt, J.), rendered February 27, 2004, convicting him of violating section 1128 (a) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and imposing sentence.


Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed on the facts, simplified traffic information dismissed and fine and surcharge, if paid, remitted.

Defendant was issued a simplified traffic information charging a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 (a) following an accident which occurred on December 8, 2003 at 7:40 A.M. on Route 6 in the Town of Greenville. The evidence established that defendant's vehicle veered off the road and hit a utility pole. Defendant claimed that he lost control of the vehicle through no fault of his own after it went over a patch of "black ice." The New York State Trooper who responded to the scene after the accident stated that he cited defendant for the instant violation based upon his investigation. His investigation consisted of an interview with defendant and a walk of the area with defendant's mother which turned up no evidence of black ice. Inasmuch as the court's minutes did not indicate when the walk took place, said testimony is inconclusive as to the nonexistence of black ice on the roadway at the time of the incident. In view of the foregoing, we find that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]).
Decision Date: December 09, 2004

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.