People v Anghel (Maria)

[*1] People v Anghel (Maria) 2014 NY Slip Op 51161(U) Decided on July 24, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 24, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : IANNACCI, J.P., MARANO and GARGUILO, JJ.
2012-2112 N C

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Maria Anghel, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Nassau County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (John P. O'Shea, J.H.O.), entered April 11, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, imposed a $65 civil liability upon defendant as the owner of a vehicle which had failed to stop at a red light.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

This action was commenced to impose a civil liability upon defendant as the owner of a vehicle which had been recorded by a "traffic-control signal photo violation-monitoring" device failing to comply with a traffic-control indication in violation of Local Law No. 12 (2009) of the County of Nassau, which established title 72, "Vehicle Owner Liability For Failure Of Operator To Comply With Traffic—Control Indications" (see also Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1111—b, 1111 [d]).

It was alleged in the notice of liability that defendant's vehicle did not stop at a red light on February 4, 2012, at 5:29 p.m., at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Merrick Road. The notice advised defendant that the recorded images and video of the offense would be submitted as evidence in the proceeding. At the hearing, the People entered into evidence a series of photographs depicting defendant's vehicle, the red light involved, and the location of the subject violation, as well as a video of the events charged in this matter. Additionally, the People entered into evidence a technician's certificate certifying the violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d) and stating that the information received from the Department of Motor Vehicles was compared with the images on the videotape and the photographs, and ascertained to be the same. The certificate further stated that defendant's vehicle did not come to a full stop at the red traffic light nor did it remain there until the light turned green. The court found defendant liable and imposed a civil liability upon her in the sum of $65.

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111-b (d) and section 3 (b) of title 72, the technician's certificate constituted prima facie evidence of the violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d), which evidence defendant failed to rebut. Defendant's contention that she was denied the right to confront witnesses is without merit (see People v Kay, 38 Misc 3d 131[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52414[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]; People v Nager, 34 Misc 3d 135[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52390[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011]). We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit or unpreserved for appellate review (see generally Levine v Traffic & Parking Violation Agency for Nassau County, 29 Misc 3d 1205[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51702[U] [Sup Ct, Nassau County 2010]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Iannacci, J.P., Marano and Garguilo, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: July 24, 2014