People v Farrell (Kathleen)

[*1] People v Farrell (Kathleen) 2020 NY Slip Op 50141(U) Decided on January 30, 2020 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 30, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : THOMAS A. ADAMS, P.J., TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, JJ
2017-1886 P CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Kathleen B. Farrell, Appellant.

Kathleen B. Farrell, appellant pro se. Putnam County District Attorney, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Brewster, Putnam County (Richard L. O'Rourke, J.), rendered August 2, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of failing to stop at a stop sign, and imposed sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

In a simplified traffic information, defendant was charged with failing to stop at a stop sign (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 [a]). According to the court's return, the complaining police officer testified at trial that he had been parked 10 feet from the intersection when he had observed defendant's "grey" Mazda fail to stop at a stop sign. Following the trial, defendant was found guilty of the charge.

On appeal, defendant contends that her Mazda is black, and that the officer stopped the wrong vehicle. Contrary to defendant's contention, the Justice Court considered defendant's claim that the officer had stopped the wrong vehicle but found that the officer's testimony was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As defendant gave a different account of the events from that presented by the complaining officer, an issue of credibility was presented. On appeal, we accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, observe their demeanor, and assess their credibility (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]). Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the Justice Court's determination.

We note that we do not consider the documentary evidence annexed to defendant's brief on appeal, as it is dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: January 30, 2020