People v Jacobs (James)

[*1] People v Jacobs (James) 2018 NY Slip Op 51852(U) Decided on December 13, 2018 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 13, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : JERRY GARGUILO, J.P., ANTHONY MARANO, BRUCE E. TOLBERT, JJ
2015-2636 S CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

James Jacobs, Appellant.

Scott Lockwood, for appellant. Suffolk County Traffic Prosecutor's Office (Justin W. Smiloff of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (Alan M. Wolinsky, J.H.O.), rendered September 2, 2015. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, convicted defendant of speeding, and imposed sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was charged in a simplified traffic information with speeding (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 [d]) based on conduct occurring on May 27, 2015, at 9:47 a.m., while defendant was traveling on Route 25, one thousand feet east of Warner Road in Huntington, Suffolk County. It was alleged in the police officer's supporting deposition that he had observed defendant's vehicle traveling on a roadway for which the maximum posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph), "at a rate of 62 [mph] on a certified speed laser instrument." Following a nonjury trial, defendant was found guilty as charged, and the court imposed a fine in the amount of $300, plus a $55 agency fee and an $88 surcharge.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we are of the opinion that the proof was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of speeding beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon an independent review of the record, we are also satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Laser readings are generally admissible and may independently be sufficient to prove a speeding violation if there is reasonable proof of the device's accuracy (see People v Solanet, 44 Misc 3d 138[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51253[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2014]; People v Les, 36 Misc 3d 138[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51439[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]; People v Chu, 2002 NY Slip Op 40439[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2002]). Such a device's accuracy may be established by proof that a police officer, who is a qualified operator, conducted tests indicating that the laser had been functioning properly at the time of the incident, and calibration records are not needed to establish the device's accuracy (see People v Palu, 47 Misc 3d 35 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2015]; Solanet, 44 Misc 3d 138[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51253[U]; People v Smith, 13 Misc 3d 131[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51862[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, [*2]9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]).

Here, the police officer who had issued the uniform traffic ticket to defendant testified that he had verified defendant's vehicle's speed using an Ultralyte laser device, which showed the vehicle to be traveling at 62 mph in a posted zone with a maximum speed limit of 40 mph. He further testified that he was trained in the operation of laser devices and had received state certification to be an operator of such a device. He also provided the court with very specific details of the tests that he had performed on the laser device, both before and after he had measured defendant's vehicle's speed, to ensure its calibration and accuracy. Consequently, he had determined that the device was working properly. Thus, the fact that the officer testified that, as a qualified operator, he had used a properly calibrated laser device to measure defendant's speed sufficed independently to prove a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (see Solanet, 44 Misc 3d 138[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51253[U]).

Contrary to defendant's contention, the administrative fee in the sum of $55 imposed by the court is authorized and is not preempted by state law (see People v Gray, 58 Misc 3d 155[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50184[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2018]).

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them either to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 13, 2018