Opinion
No. 2011–1889 N C.
2012-12-21
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mitchell N. KAY, Appellant.
Present: NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and LaSALLE, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Nassau County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (Kenneth S. Diamond, J.H.O.), entered May 18, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, imposed a $50 civil liability, plus a $15 administrative fee, upon defendant as the owner of a vehicle which failed to stop at a red light.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
This action was commenced to impose a civil liability upon defendant as the owner of a vehicle which was recorded by a “traffic-control signal photo violation-monitoring” device failing to comply with a traffic-control indicator in violation of Local Law No. 12 (2009) of the County of Nassau ( see alsoVehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1111–b, 1111[d] ). It was alleged in the notice of liability that the driver of defendant's vehicle did not stop at a red light on February 4, 2011, at 8:53 p.m., at “SB N Broadway @ Nevada St.” The notice advised defendant that the recorded images and video of the offense would be submitted as evidence in the proceeding.
At the hearing, the People entered into evidence a series of photographs depicting defendant's vehicle, the red light involved, and the video of the events alleged herein. Additionally, the People entered into evidence a certificate by the technician who had interpreted the images, attesting to the fact that defendant's vehicle did not come to a full stop at the red light nor did it remain there until the light turned green. Defendant did not deny that he was the owner of the vehicle or that the vehicle was driven through a red light. The court found defendant liable and imposed a civil liability upon him ( seeVehicle and Traffic Law § 1111–b [f] ) in the sum of $50, plus a $15 administrative fee.
Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111–b (d), the technician's certificate constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts set forth therein, which prima facie showing defendant failed to rebut. Upon a review of the record, we find defendant's contention that he was denied the right to confront witnesses to be without merit ( see People v. Nager, 34 Misc.3d 135[A], 2011 N.Y. Slip Op 52390[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011] ). Additionally, we find defendant's remaining contentions to be equally without merit or unpreserved for appellate review.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.