STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANNA KRONFELD

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1535-04T51535-04T5

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANNA KRONFELD,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

 

Argued September 20, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Coburn and Collester.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Morris County, 04-019.

Gerard E. Hanlon argued the cause for appellant

(Hanlon and Dunn, attorneys; Mr. Hanlon, of

counsel and on the brief).

Joseph Connor, Jr., Assistant Prosecutor, argued

the cause for respondent (Michael M. Rubbinaccio,

Morris County Prosecutor, attorney; Mr. Connor,

of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Anna Kronfeld appeals from her convictions of N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2, operating a motor vehicle as an uninsured motorist, and N.J.S.A. 39:3-4, driving an unregistered vehicle, after a trial in the Law Division. As a first offender for the insurance violation, defendant received the mandatory sentence of a one year loss of driver's license and the minimum fine of $300, and a $50 fine for the unregistered vehicle offense.

At about 6:30 p.m. on March 2, 2004, Mendham Borough Patrolman Christopher A. Hopf was on duty in the vicinity of the Mendham Village Shopping Center when he saw a 2002 Mercedes illegally parked outside a restaurant. As Patrolman Hopf checked the car's registration on his patrol car computer, defendant came out of the restaurant and went to the Mercedes. She told Patrolman Hopf that she would not park there again, and he gave her a warning. As defendant pulled away, the patrol car computer disclosed that the registration for the Mercedes had expired several months earlier in November 2003. Patrolman Hopf then stopped defendant as she was driving out of the shopping center, advised her of the report that the car's registration had expired and asked her for her driving credentials. Defendant produced her license and an expired registration. Later she produced an insurance card which had also expired months earlier.

Patrolman Hopf later testified that defendant made certain admissions to him at the scene. Specifically, he stated that he said she knew the vehicle was unregistered since she had received a summons the prior week by another police department and that she was aware that she did not have insurance because she had not paid the premium. She explained that although she was uninsured, she was keeping the vehicle at her Mendham home and driving it only to transport her children and only in Mendham. Moreover, while defendant told the officer she was the owner of the Mercedes, it was determined and stipulated that the Mercedes was a leased vehicle owned and registered to the Millennium Auto Group.

Testifying in her defense in the Mendham Borough Municipal Court, defendant said that when she was stopped by Patrolman Hopf, she did not know whether or not she had insurance on the Mercedes. She stated that she had not received a notice of cancellation from the insurance company and had no idea whether the Millennium Auto Group insured the vehicle. She explained that at the time she was in the midst of a divorce and had received a diagnosis of lymphoma so that during the three month period she was not functioning normally and opening mail. On cross-examination she was shown and acknowledged the lease agreement she signed with Millennium which contained provisions requiring her to maintain liability insurance of at least $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence for bodily injury or death and $50,000 per occurrence for property damage.

Defendant denied telling Patrolman Hopf that she knew she did not have insurance on the Mercedes or that she owed the insurance company a lot of money. She stated that after the incident, she and her parents went through her unopened mail and found a final bill from December 2003, from her insurer for liability and insurance coverage on the Mercedes. Defendant acknowledged that she had not paid the final bill but added that she had not received a notice of cancellation from the company. She called the insurance company to reinstate the insurance and received a copy of a letter dated March 4, 2004 stating that her policy was cancelled on November 13, 2003, for non-payment of premium.

The municipal court judge made a specific credibility finding that Patrolman Hopf accurately and truthfully related that defendant admitted to him that she knew she was operating the Mercedes without insurance because she owed her insurance company money and, also knew the vehicle's registration had expired because she was stopped a few nights earlier by an officer in a nearby municipality. Moreover, upon consideration of the record de novo on appeal to the Law Division, Judge Catherine M. Langlois found she was satisfied that Patrolman Hopf testified truthfully and that the notification from her insurance company indicating that her policy was cancelled for non-payment of premium corroborated that testimony. She further found, following counsel for defendant's indication there was no contest on the issue, that the defendant was driving without a valid registration.

On appeal, defendant argues the following:

POINT I - THE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION FOR VIOLATING THE NO INSURANCE PROVISIONS OF N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2 MUST BE REVERSED AS A MATTER OF LAW AS THE STATE PROVIDED NO PROOF THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INSURED AS REQUIRED BY THAT STATUTE.

POINT II - EVEN IF THE COURT FINDS THAT THE STATE HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE FAILED TO MAINTAIN THE REQUIRED INSURANCE, THE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION AS AN OPERATOR FOR VIOLATING THE NO INSURANCE PROVISIONS OF N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2 MUST BE REVERSED AS A MATTER OF LAW AS THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT MS. KRONFELD KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THE MOTOR VEHICLE WAS WITHOUT THE REQUIRED LIABILITY INSURANCE.

POINT III - EVEN IF THE COURT DEEMS MS. KRONFELD TO BE THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE FOR THE PURPOSES OF N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2, THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INSURED AND THE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION MUST BE REVERSED.

POINT IV - THE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION FOR VIOLATING N.J.S.A. 39:3-4 MUST BE REVERSED AS A MATTER OF LAW SINCE THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE FAILED TO MAINTAIN ITS REGISTRATION.

Owners or registered owners of motor vehicles in New Jersey must carry liability insurance in specified minimum recovery amounts, N.J.S.A. 39:6B-1, and any person who operates a motor vehicle on the highways of this State "who knows or should know from the attendant circumstances that the motor vehicle is without motor vehicle liability insurance coverage required by this Act" is in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2. The burden is therefore upon the State to prove operation of an uninsured vehicle and knowledge by the operator that the required coverage is not in effect. In this case both the municipal court judge and Judge Langlois on de novo appeal on the record found that defendant made the admissions to the patrolman as to operation and knowledge, and we must give substantial deference to factual findings when they could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record. State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999); State v. Barone, 147 N.J. 599, 615 (1997); State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 161-62 (1964). Our review of the record convinces us that there was more than sufficient evidence based on the admissions of defendant and the documentary evidence introduced to support defendant's conviction under N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2 for operating a motor vehicle when she knew or should have known from attendant circumstances that it was uninsured. In light of this determination we need not consider defendant's arguments relating to ownership of the Mercedes.

As to defendant's argument that her conviction for violating N.J.S.A. 39:3-4 was in error because the State failed to prove that she did not maintain the registration on the vehicle, the issue was not raised in her notice of appeal so that the challenge to this position was not preserved. Campagna v. American Cyanamid Co., 337 N.J. Super. 530, 550 (App. Div. 2001), certif. denied, 168 N.J. 294 (2001). Moreover, defendant's argument has no merit since N.J.S.A. 39:3-29 specifies that the registration certificate must be in the possession of the driver or operator al all times. Therefore, it is a violation of the statute for a person, whether owner or non-owner, to drive a motor vehicle on the highways of this State when the operator knows or should know that the motor vehicle is not registered. State v. David, 287 N.J. Super. 434, 440-41 (App. Div. 1996). Here the State proved that defendant produced an expired registration to Patrolman Hopf and stated that she knew the car was unregistered because she had been charged the previous week with the same offense.

 
The remaining arguments made by defendant are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

7

A-1535-04T5

November 9, 2005