People v Travis

[*1] People v Travis 2006 NY Slip Op 51783(U) [13 Misc 3d 1211(A)] Decided on September 8, 2006 Just Ct DiSalvo, J. 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 8, 2006
Just Ct

People of the State of New York

against

Kim S. Travis, Defendant,



MV-11642

Joseph A. DiSalvo, J.

The People of the State of New York charge Defendant Kim S. Travis with the violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law ' 1174, for passing a school bus that had stopped and had displayed flashing lights and a stop sign on March 14, 2006. This matter was tried before the Court on May 24, 2006. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds Defendant guilty of violating VTL ' 1174.

The People=s sole witness, Police Officer Brian Pietropaolo testified that he was assigned on March 14, 2006 to a tour of duty that required him to follow a school bus picking up children for the Village elementary school and to enforce the provisions of VTL ' 1174. VTL ' 1174 requires all drivers in either direction on the same street, public highway or private road to come to a stop when a school bus stops to pick up or discharge passengers and displays the lights required by VTL ' 375 (20).

Officer Pietropaolo testified that, on March 14, 2006, he followed a school bus that was properly equipped under VTL ' 375 (20) and that said bus came to a stop in the northbound righthand lane of Broadway, near Devon Way, in Hastings-on-Hudson, displayed its flashing red and yellow lights, and extended a stop sign from the driver=s side of the school bus.

Police Officer Pietropaolo testified further that, after the school bus stopped, he observed a black vehicle, traveling southbound, pass the stopped school bus, that he, Officer Pietropaolo, [*2]then pulled out, and observed Defendant=s vehicle, which was a minivan school bus, also proceed southbound and pass the stopped school bus.



Police Officer Pietropaolo testified that he turned his police vehicle southbound and that he stopped the driver of the black vehicle and Defendant Travis and issued tickets to both persons charging them with violations of VTL ' 1174.

The People introduced into evidence a videotape which showed the entire event, including the stopping of the school bus, the approach and passing by the black vehicle and Defendant=s vehicle, and the Police Officer=s pulling out, turning around and pursuit. The Police Officer testified that the video recorder was mounted on a stand in the front interior of the police car, that he pulled the tape at the end of the tour, he initialed the label, and then he reviewed it again prior to trial and initialed it again. The Police Officer testified that the tape fairly and accurately depicted the events he observed on March 14, 2006.

Defendant testified forthrightly in her own behalf. She acknowledged having seen the stopped school bus. She contended, however, that she was not obligated to stop because Broadway, near Devon Way, becomes a divided road and the school bus was on the northbound side and she was on the southbound side of that division.

The Court notes that Broadway is a major north/south thoroughfare in the Village of Hastings-on-Hudson. Broadway consists of two travel lanes in each direction. At the Devon Way intersection with Broadway the northbound/southbound lanes divide around an island, that starting from the north end, consists first of yellow pavement markings, then a grassy divide with curbs and grass, then a turnaround lane, then houses, and finally a large senior citizen community. The northbound and southbound lanes come together south of the senior housing community. The event in question occurred at the north end of the divide. Therefore, the issues facing the Court are:

Where exactly did the school bus stop, relative to the division in Broadway?

What, if anything, separated the stopped school bus from Defendant=s vehicle?

Was Defendant obligated to stop her vehicle when the school bus stopped?

Where did the school bus stop?

The simplified traffic information alleges that Defendant=s violation occurred southbound on Broadway at the intersection with Devon Way. Police Officer Pietropaolo testified that the school bus he followed on March 14, 2006 stopped on Broadway near Devon Way, in the right-hand, [*3]northbound lane

What separated the stopped school bus from Defendant=s vehicle?

Defendant, at first, testified that the island itself separated her vehicle from the stopped school bus and that the existence of the curbs and grassy expanse meant that the road had divided and that she was not obligated to stop. In support of that claim, Defendant testified that the police officer had proceeded northbound and then entered the turnaround which cuts through the island, in order to turn southbound and stop her vehicle.

The parties and the court reviewed the videotape numerous times during the trial and focused, in particular, on the relative location of the stopped school bus, the island, the turnaround, and Defendant=s vehicle. On cross examination, and after reviewing the tape a number of times, in slow motion and with pauses, Defendant admitted that the police officer turned around in the striped area of pavement markings at the north end of the island, that as he proceeded south the turnaround appears on his left and, importantly, that the only thing separating the stopped school bus and Defendant=s vehicle were the yellow pavement markings in the roadway and not curbs, grass and houses.

Was Defendant obligated to stop?

The Court finds that Defendant was obligated to stop her vehicle when the school bus stopped. The roadway was not physically divided in any fashion at that point by the grassy, curbed beginning of the island, by the turnaround, or by the houses or senior community buildings. The only thing separating the stopped school bus and Defendant=s vehicle were the yellow pavement markings that signal the physical division that was to follow. Thus, the markings were not a physical barrier. Children easily could walk over such markings.

VTL ' 1174 requires a driver of a vehicle Aupon a public highway, street or private road@ to stop when overtaking from either direction any school bus that is stopped and properly marked.

VTL ' 134 defines a Public Highway as AAny highway, road, street, avenue, alley, public place, public driveway or any other public way.@

VTL ' 118 defines Highway as AThe entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.@

VTL ' 148 defines Street as AThe entire width between the boundary lines every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.@ [*4]

Although Vehicle and Traffic Law does not, in ' 1174, include reference to a Aroadway@, VTL ' 140 defines Roadway to include AThat portion of a highway improved, designed, marked, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the shoulder and slope.@ The definition continues as follows: AIn the event a highway includes two or more separate roadways the term >roadway= as used herein shall refer to any such roadway separately but not to all roadways collectively.@ Although VTL ' 1174 does not reference a Aroadway@, the concept is an interesting one to apply to the facts at hand, because Defendant essentially is contending that Broadway is divided into two separate roadways at the point of her incident and, therefore, she was not obligated to stop. That argument could carry some weight with respect to the portions of Broadway that are divided by the houses and senior citizen buildings, and possibly, by the island and grassy expanses. Those factors, however, are not at play in the current situation, and, accordingly, are not the basis for making the decision herein. Rather, Defendant finally admitted, after reviewing the videotape, that the only things separating her vehicle from the stopped school bus were the yellow pavement markings. Accordingly, this Court finds that the roadway was not physically divided, that the northbound and southbound lanes of Broadway were not separate roadways at the point in question, that it was possible on the morning of March 14, 2006, for children to be picked up from either side of Broadway and that, therefore, Defendant should have brought her vehicle to a stop when she observed the stopped school bus.

This Court=s verdict, therefore, is that Defendant is guilty of violating VTL ' 1174. The Court imposes on Defendant the statutory minimum fine of $250 and the mandatory New York State surcharge of $55. Additionally, however, the Court emphasizes that Defendant persuaded this Court that she sincerely believed that she was not required under the law to stop her vehicle on March 14, 2006. Although such a belief is not a defense, since intent is not a required element for VTL ' 1174, see People v. Janoske, 206 Misc 155, 132 N.Y.S.2d 186 (Broome Co. Ct. 1954) and People v. Soe, 9 Misc 3d 1069, 805 N.Y.S.2d 262 (Justice Ct., Village of Valley Stream, 2005), the Court suggests to Defendant=s employer that the fine and surcharge alone should be her punishment and that she not suffer any additional consequences as a result of this decision.

The foregoing verdict and sentence constitute the Judgment of this Court.

______________________________________

Joseph A. DiSalvo

Village Justice f5178360.txt [*5]