People v Dubinin (Vladimir)

[*1] People v Dubinin (Vladimir) 2019 NY Slip Op 50914(U) Decided on June 6, 2019 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 6, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : THOMAS A. ADAMS, P.J., JERRY GARGUILO, TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, JJ
2017-1061 S C

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Vladimir Dubinin, Appellant.

Vladimir Dubinin, appellant pro se. Suffolk County Traffic Prosecutor's Office, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (Allen S. Mathers, J.H.O.), entered February 8, 2017. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, imposed a civil liability of $80 on defendant, as the owner of a motor vehicle which had failed to stop at a red light, as well as a $30 administrative fee.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

This action was commenced to impose a civil liability upon defendant as the owner of a motor vehicle which had been recorded by a camera failing to stop at a red light, in violation of Suffolk County Local Law § 20-2009 (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1111-b, 1111 [d]). At a nonjury trial, the People's evidence consisted of photographs of defendant's vehicle at the scene, a video, the vehicle's abstract, and a certificate by a technician certifying that she had reviewed the video and photographs and had determined that defendant's vehicle had not stopped at a red light. This evidence established, prima facie, defendant's liability (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111-b [d]). Moreover, defendant admitted that his "vehicle [had gone] through the red light, making the right turn very slowly with no danger to anybody without coming to a complete stop, before making a turn." In view of the foregoing, we find no merit to defendant's contention that the court was biased against him and had determined that defendant was liable prior to hearing the evidence. We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and similarly find them to be [*2]without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 06, 2019