People v Halpert (Ariel)

[*1] People v Halpert (Ariel) 2005 NYSlipOp 50557(U) Decided on April 15, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 15, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: April 15, 2005 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and COVELLO, JJ.
2004-554 RO CR

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

ARIEL HALPERT, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from judgments of the Justice Court, Town of Ramapo, Rockland County (S. Colman, J.), rendered February 23, 2004, convicting him of driving through a safety zone (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1221) and disobeying a no left turn sign (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1160 [d]), and imposing sentence.

Judgments of conviction unanimously reversed on the law, accusatory instruments dismissed and fines, if paid, remitted.

Defendant was convicted of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1160 (d). The statute prohibits drivers from turning at intersections other than as directed by, among other things, markers and signs. However, the evidence adduced at trial, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), did not establish that the defendant turned at an intersection (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 118, 120, 134, 1160 [d]; People v Thew, 44 NY2d 681 [1978]; People v Kenyon, 85 AD2d 916 [1981]). As a result, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1160 [d] (see e.g. People v Bell, 286 AD2d 772 [2001]). We note that defendant was neither charged with nor convicted of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1110.

Defendant was also convicted of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1221 which prohibits vehicles from driving through or within a safety zone. However, the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to establish that the defendant drove through or within a safety zone (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 141, 1221; see also 17 NYCRR 261.10; People v Nicolo, [*2]166 AD2d 912 [1990]; People v Magovern, 80 Misc 2d 968 [1975]).
Decision Date: April 15, 2005