People v Barschall (Anne)

[*1] People v Barschall (Anne) 2007 NY Slip Op 52002(U) [17 Misc 3d 132(A)] Decided on October 5, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 5, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., EMERSON and LaCAVA, JJ
2006-380 RO CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Anne E. Barschall, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Orangetown, Rockland County (Paul B. Phinney, III, J.), rendered April 26, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of passing a red traffic signal.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

The evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d) (1) by entering the subject intersection despite a red light for her direction of traffic. She told the officer that she "became distracted and looked down in her vehicle, and when she looked back up she realized that the traffic light at the intersection of Route 9W and Oak Tree Road was red, but she could not stop the vehicle in time and struck the other vehicle involved." The testimony also
showed that the speed limit was 45 miles per hour and that there was a "curve" warning sign for her direction prior to the intersection but no "Signal Ahead" sign.

Upon this appeal, defendant does not assert that the red traffic signal was invisible but merely that there should have been a "Signal Ahead" sign posted on the side of the road before the intersection as purportedly provided for in the State's regulations and that in the absence of such posted sign, the traffic control device at the intersection was illegal and unenforceable (cf. 17 NYCRR 232.6 [a] [2]; People v Cooper, 112 Misc 2d 277 [1981]). We are of the view that even if the imprecise evidence had shown that the posting of a "Signal Ahead" sign was appropriate, the regulation calling for the posting of said type of sign was advisory rather than [*2]mandatory (see People v Coleman, 58 AD2d 968 [1977]). To hold otherwise could grant a license to motorists to fail to obey red traffic signals throughout the state under circumstances similar to those in the instant case. In view of the proof before us, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

Rudolph, P.J., Emerson and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 05, 2007