Matter of Connors v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles

Matter of Connors v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles 2011 NY Slip Op 00792 Decided on February 10, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 10, 2011
Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Acosta, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
4246 260162/09

[*1]In re Patrick J. Connors, Petitioner-Appellant,

v

New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, Respondent-Respondent.




Jones Hirsch Connors & Bull, P.C., New York (Kerry J.
Kaltenbach of counsel), for appellant.
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York (Patrick J.
Walsh of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edgar G. Walker, J.), entered October 19, 2009, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking, inter alia, to vacate respondent's determination that petitioner was guilty of driving at an excessive rate of speed, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner is not entitled to dismissal of the subject charges on the basis that the New York City Police Department (NYPD) failed to fully comply with a subpoena. It is well established that the CPLR and CPL are not binding on respondent and the procedures set forth therein do not apply to proceedings conducted by it unless specifically authorized (see 15 NYCRR 123.1). In any event, the NYPD produced the relevant "speed detection device" petitioner sought, namely, the trained and qualified officer who physically observed petitioner traveling nearly 100 miles per hour in a 50-miles-per-hour zone. The NYPD also produced a certified copy of the document showing that the speedometer in the officer's vehicle, which he used to pace petitioner's speed, was properly calibrated and functioning properly (see People v Olsen, 22 NY2d 230, 232 [1968]; Matter of Stamos v Appeals Bd. of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 309 AD2d 572 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 505 [2003]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 10, 2011

CLERK