People v OHBERG (MARK)

[*1] People v OHBERG (MARK) 2005 NY Slip Op 50060(U) Decided on January 26, 2005 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 26, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: January 26, 2005 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : RUDOLPH, J.P., ANGIOLILLO and COVELLO, JJ.
2004-606 P CR

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

MARK S. OHBERG, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from judgments of the Justice Court, Town of Patterson, Putnam County (R. Tricinelli, J.), rendered April 26, 2004, convicting him of speeding (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 [b]) and unsafe lane change (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 [a]), and imposing sentences.

Judgments of conviction unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilty was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]). As to the other issues raised on the appeal, we note that the facts set forth in the return to the affidavit of errors are conclusive as to all controverted matters and this court, as well as all parties, are bound thereby (see People v Mason, 307 NY 570, 574 [1954]; People v Turnbull, 2003 NY Slip Op 51183[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; People v DeWitt, 171 Misc 2d 622 [1996]). Inasmuch as there was nothing in the return to support defendant's contention that the court acted in a manner that deprived him of a fair trial and that the maximum authorized speed limit of 55 miles per hour at the place of the violation was unauthorized, the judgments of conviction should not be disturbed. [*2]
Decision Date: January 26, 2005