People v Kornbluh (Shloma)

[*1] People v Kornbluh (Shloma) 2017 NY Slip Op 51444(U) Decided on October 26, 2017 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 26, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : JERRY GARGUILO, J.P., BRUCE E. TOLBERT, TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, JJ
NO. 2015-2564 OR CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Shloma Kornbluh, Appellant.

Shloma Kornbluh, appellant pro se. John Bach, Jr., Esq., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Blooming Grove, Orange County (Stephen J. Smith, J.), rendered October 14, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of speeding.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

On June 5, 2015, the People charged defendant, in a simplified traffic information, with speeding (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 [d]). The supporting deposition states that, at 2:20 p.m. on that date, New York State Trooper Alan Bonney observed defendant traveling at 83 miles per hour in a 65 miles per hour speed zone, as determined by a visual observation and a radar device.

Defendant failed to preserve any claim of evidentiary insufficiency by objecting to the adequacy of the proof (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 20 [1995]; see also People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001]; People v Acevedo, 136 AD3d 1386, 1386 [2016]; People v Broomfield, 55 Misc 3d 137[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50506[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]). In any event, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), the evidence was legally sufficient to prove that defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (d). The trooper's testimony that he was a qualified radar device operator and had employed a properly calibrated device to measure defendant's speed at 83 miles per hour in a 65 miles per hour speed zone sufficed to establish a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (d) (People v Dusing, 5 NY2d 126, 128 [1959]; e.g. People v Linden, 52 Misc 3d 134[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51019[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2016]; People v Giaccio, 42 Misc 3d 127[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 52147[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists [2013]; People v Schnitzler, 37 Misc 3d 143[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52288[U], *1 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

GARGUILO, J.P., TOLBERT and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 26, 2017