People v Holness
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 15, 2011
City Court of New Rochelle
The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
against
Carlene S. Holness, Defendant.
0042252831
BRIAN D. MURPHY, ESQ.
City of New Rochelle Law Department
515 North Avenue
New Rochelle, NY 10801
CARLENE S. HOLNESS
Pro-Se Defendant
Susan I. Kettner, J.
Defendant is charged with violating New Rochelle City Code *312.39 (No Parking Anytime) and VTL * 1102 (Failure to Comply With Lawful Order).
The credible evidence adduced at a non-jury trial held on December 8, 2011 is as follows:
Police Officer Aaron Goldstein was working the 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. shift on November 3, 2011. At approximately 3:10 p.m. he was engaged in traffic enforcement at New Rochelle High School (NRHS) in a marked police motorcycle covering Clove Road and the adjacent side streets. The stated purpose of this particular patrol was to avert the "after-school" dismissal gridlock of parents illegally parking and/or standing and blocking school buses at dismissal
At approximately 3:10 p.m., the officer encountered Ms. Holness (Defendant) at a "No Parking Anytime" space. He tapped his horn and approached the defendant's vehicle and gestured to the defendant and defendant ignored him. He sounded the siren and defendant put down her window, whereupon the officer asked her to move her car. She stated that she was picking up her son from school and asked him where she could park. According to the officer, the defendant was parked in a school bus handicap pick up spot when he first confronted her. The officer directed her to park temporarily in a nearby vacant teacher's spot. Defendant moved her vehicle so that it was now parked on Clove Road next to the vacant teacher's spot instead of in the spot as directed. According to the officer, he asked her again to move and she refused to comply. He then issued UTT # 0042252831 for "No Parking Anytime", a violation of New Rochelle City Code *312.39. The officer called for back up and then , in the presence of Police Officer Jose Hewitt, he asked defendant to move once again and she refused. The officer issued UTT # LX 709236 for violation of VTL *1102 (Failure to Obey Lawful Order). The defendant admitted that she did not move her vehicle when she was asked to do so a second time and that when she was [*2]initially asked to park in the vacant teacher's parking spot, she parked next to the spot. Defendant claimed that she was not able to comply with the officer's command because she had a cramped foot. She also testified that she had advance notice of her medical condition, but assumed the risk in electing to drive in any event. The defendant left once she picked up her son, apparently unimpeded by her medical condition.
The court finds the defendant guilty of violating the "No Parking Anytime" since the evidence credibly placed her at 265 Clove Road in a "no parking anytime" zone.
With respect to "failure to obey a lawful order", VTL * 1102 reads as follows;
"Obedience to police officers and flagpersons. No person shall fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police officer or flagperson or other person duly empowered to regulate traffic". Police Officer Goldstein testified that he was assigned to the area to enforce traffic regulations and to avert after-school gridlock which often occurred when parents picked up their children and often parked illegally, blocking the smooth flow of traffic. While not engaged in the classic regulation of traffic, as in standing in the street and directing a flow of actual vehicles, the officer here was legitimately engaged in the enforcement of traffic regulations designed to "regulate traffic". Based upon the credible testimony, the court finds that the officer's actions are contemplated activities and thus covered under a broad interpretation of the statute. This is clearly not a case where the courts have held that the statute does not apply because the officer was not engaged in traffic regulation. People v. DeCerbo, 4 Misc 2d 23, 783 N.Y.S.2d 202. The DeCerbo court dealt with the defendant's failure to obey a police officer's order to return to his vehicle, where defendant had just pulled his vehicle over to the shoulder and exited to check on his son, who had just been pulled over by the police for an alleged DWI. Nor is this similar to a case where the defendant failed to obey a police order to move his upper body from the hood of a police vehicle stopped during the arrest of the defendant's driving companion for DWI. People v. Hanley, 30 NY2d 863.
Based upon the foregoing, the court finds that the People have met their burden of proof on all essential elements of both offenses charged. The defendant is directed to pay the following fines: $40.00 for violating NRCC *312.39 and a $150.00 fine and $80.00 surcharge for violating VTL * 1102.
The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.
Dated: December 15, 2011
New Rochelle, New York
Hon. SUSAN I. KETTNERCity Court Judge
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.
