People v Fabiani (John)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Fabiani (John) 2014 NY Slip Op 50183(U) Decided on January 31, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 31, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., LaSALLE and MARANO, JJ
2012-2072 W CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

John . Fabiani, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Scarsdale, Westchester County (John H. Galloway, J.), rendered July 19, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of overtaking and passing a school bus.


ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

After a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of passing a stopped school bus that had its red lights flashing (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1174 [a]). 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 of overtaking and passing a school bus (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1174 [a]). Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]), while according great deference to the trier of fact's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, observe their demeanor, and assess their credibility (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), we are satisfied that the verdict of the Justice Court was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643-646 [2006]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., LaSalle and Marano, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 31, 2014

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.