People v Kogosov (David)

[*1] People v Kogosov (David) 2007 NY Slip Op 50944(U) [15 Misc 3d 139(A)] Decided on May 7, 2007 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 7, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., LIPPMAN and OWEN, JJ
2006-1870 OR CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

David Kogosov, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Wawayanda, Orange County (Peter P. Gromacki, J.), rendered September 22, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of speeding.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

By simplified traffic information, defendant was charged with speeding in violation of section 1180 (d) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. After a nonjury trial, defendant was found guilty. At trial, the officer testified that he estimated that defendant was traveling at a rate of speed of 85 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour zone. It is well settled that even the uncorroborated testimony of a qualified police
officer as to a vehicle's rate of speed is legally sufficient to support a conviction of violating section 1180 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law so long as "the variance between the estimated speed and maximum permissible speed is sufficiently wide so that . . . [the fact finder] may be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant exceeded the permissible limit" (People v Olsen, 22 NY2d 230, 232 [1968]; e.g. People v Ramaker, 9 Misc 3d 131[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51592[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; People v Crawford, 5 Misc 3d 137[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51558[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). In this case, the variance between defendant's speed and the speed limit was "sufficiently wide" to permit that inference, as it exceeded the 20 miles per hour variance deemed "clearly sufficient" to support the conviction (People v Olsen, 22 NY2d at 232). Further, even if, as defendant contends, the record does not establish that the officer employed a properly calibrated radar device to measure defendant's speed (cf. People v Dusing, 5 NY2d 126, 128 [1959]), the officer's visual estimate sufficiently corroborated the radar measurement to render "any perceived deficiency in the radar evidence . . . of no consequence" (People v Knight, 72 NY2d 481, 488 [1988]; see e.g. People v Magri, 3 [*2]NY2d 562, 567 [1958]; People v Ramaker, 9 Misc 3d 131[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51592[U], supra; People v Davis, 5 Misc 3d 137[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51559[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]).

Defendant's other contentions raised on appeal have been considered and found to be without merit.

Rudolph, P.J., Lippman and Owen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 7, 2007