People v Rivkin (Stanley)

[*1] People v Rivkin (Stanley) 2014 NY Slip Op 51163(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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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.
2013-1097 N C

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Stanley Rivkin, Appellant.

Appeal from two judgments of the District Court of Nassau County, Nassau County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (Stephanie Kaufman, J.H.O.), entered April 16, 2013. Each judgment, after a nonjury trial, imposed a $50 civil liability, plus a $30 administrative fee, upon defendant as the owner of a vehicle which had failed to stop at a red light.

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed, without costs.

These two actions were commenced to impose civil liabilities upon defendant as the owner of a vehicle which had failed to stop at red lights in violation of Local Law No. 12 (2009) of the County of Nassau (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1111-b, 1111 [d]). At a nonjury trial, the People entered into evidence a series of photographs depicting defendant's vehicle and the red lights involved, as well as videos of the events charged in these matters. The People also submitted technicians' certificates which certified that the technicians had reviewed the videos and photographic evidence in each case, and had determined that defendant "did not come to a full stop for the red traffic light and remain there until the light turned green." Defendant did not deny that he was the owner of the vehicle or that the vehicle had driven through the red lights.

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111-b (d), a technician's certificate constitutes prima facie evidence of the violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d), which evidence defendant failed to rebut. We have reviewed defendant's contentions and find them to be without merit and/or unpreserved for appellate review.

Accordingly, the judgments are affirmed.

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

Decision Date: July 24, 2014