People v Chen (Xue)

[*1] People v Chen (Xue) 2010 NY Slip Op 52379(U) Decided on November 3, 2010 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 3, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ
2009-1755 OR CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Xue G. Chen, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Goshen, Orange County (Kimberly C. Van Haaster, J.), rendered August 8, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, convicted defendant of speeding in a work zone.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was charged with speeding in a work zone (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 [f]). At the nonjury trial, the trooper who had issued the simplified traffic information testified, among other things, that, based upon the reading of his radar unit, defendant had been traveling at 75 miles per hour (mph) in a 55 mph work zone. The trooper further testified that he had issued defendant a simplified traffic information indicating that rate of speed. During cross-examination of the trooper, defense counsel provided the witness with a photocopy of the simplified traffic information, which apparently indicated that defendant had been charged with driving at 76 mph. The Justice Court determined that the discrepancy was due to the poor quality of defendant's photocopy. The court implicitly determined, based upon the trooper's testimony that he had not altered the accusatory instrument, that the original simplified traffic information, indicating defendant's speed at 75 mph, had not been changed by the trooper. Contrary to defendant's contention, there is an adequate explanation for the purported discrepancy between the simplified traffic information issued by the trooper and defendant's photocopy thereof.

Defendant's legal insufficiency claim is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish [*2]defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Olsen, 22 NY2d 230 [1968]).

We have examined defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., LaCava and Ianacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 03, 2010