People v Das
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
People v Das 2014 NY Slip Op 33172(U) December 5, 2014 Supreme Court, Seneca County Docket Number: 48044 Judge: Dennis F. Bender Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] COUNTY COURT COUNTY OF SENECA STATE OF NEW YORK THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK -against DECISION AND ORDER Index No. 48044 SUDIPTA S. DAS, Defendant APPEARANCES: Sudipta S. Das, prose Hon. Barry Porsch Seneca County District Attorney BENDER, J. The defendant, Sudipta S. Das, appeals from a Judgment of the Junius Town Court convicting him after a non-jury trial of Speeding (V&T l 180(b)). The basis for the defendant's appeal is that he felt that the Court did not have any interest in listening and analyzing the case; that he should not have needed to produce his driving abstract; that he believed the radar utilized by the police officer may have picked up another vehicle near the defendant's vehicle, "probably moving at a higher speed"; and that a portion of the transcript did not reflect testimony by the officer in responding to the defendant's question why the officer didn't just u-turn and issue him a traffic ticket on Route 318, to which the officer allegedly responded "I did not have wings", as well as other errors in the transcript such as the defendant testifying that he was going to Waterloo Mall and the transcriber typing it up as "going to water the lawn". The defendant seeks a fair and unbiased judgment from this Court. In response to the brief submitted by the defendant, the People, through District Attorney, Barry L. Porsch, submits that negotiations occurring at the pre-trial settlement conferences are not [* 2] relevant to the issue of guilt or innocence at trial; that the verdict is supported by sufficient evidence and is not contrary to the weight of the evidence; that the trial transcript is sufficient for appellate review even if one gives the defendant the benefit of the doubt as to the purported inaccuracies he alleges; and the defendant's reference to a matter outside of the record of appeal should not be considered to wit, a letter signed by Dipsikha Das that was included with the defendant's brief. First, the last contention by the People is correct. This Court is limited to reviewing only the record from below and since the letter from Dipsikha Das was not part of that record, the same cannot and will not be considered by this Court. Secondly, the Court concurs that the trial's transcript is sufficient for appellate review. The defendant was charged with speeding to wit, going 69 mph in a 55 mph zone. The charge was supported by the testimony of Officer Maccheyne. Deputy MacCheyne testified that he was traveling westbound on State Route 318 in the Town of Junius on September 16, 2013 and that he estimated the speed of the defendant's vehicle going 69 mph. He stated that he was also using a radar unit to wit, a Custom Golden Eagle 2, and that the radar confirmed 69 mph (transcript pages 5-7). The Deputy testified that he was officially trained and was state certified on that model of radar and offered his certification for the radar operator course and further gave testimony concerning his experience and proper calibration of the radar equipment (transcript pages 5-7). Based upon that presentation, sufficient proof was before the trial court to support the speeding conviction. Connors v New York State Department of Motor Vehicles 81A.D.3d479 (I" Dept, 2011); Stamos v Appeals Board of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. 309 A.D.2d 572 (!"Dept, 2003), Iv denied 1NY3'd 505 (2003), see also People v Stephens 52 Misc.2d 1070 (Yates County Court, 1967). [* 3] In his defense, the defendant testified that he honestly believed his speed did not exceed 60 mph, and that it is a matter of principle that he submits this appeal today. While the Court does not doubt the defendant's sincerity, a review of the transcript shows sufficient evidence was presented to support the conviction for speeding. Regarding credibility determinations, the Court is obliged to accord great deference to the trial court justice, as he was the one who directly saw and heard the witnesses. People v Scott. 29 A.O. 3d 1025 (3'd Dept, 2006). This Court further finds that the presiding justice was attentive to the issues at hand and there is nothing to indicate he did not give the defendant herein a fair and impartial trial. The appeal is in all respects denied. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION D ORDpR F THE COURT. ' DATED: ~of December, 2014
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
