From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Ballen v. Commr. of Motor Vehicles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 1989
147 A.D.2d 560 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

February 14, 1989


Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The determination that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d) (1) in that he failed to obey a red traffic signal light is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is confirmed (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176; Matter of McKenzie v Fisher, 39 N.Y.2d 103; Matter of Kahn v State of New York Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 134 A.D.2d 594, 595).

On March 27, 1984, Police Officer Allen, who was monitoring traffic, parked his marked police vehicle on the northeast corner of Nassau Boulevard at its intersection with Little Neck Parkway facing in a westbound direction. From his position, he observed the traffic light on the southeast corner which controlled the southbound traffic on Little Neck Parkway. He ascertained that the traffic lights at the intersection were operational. He also observed that the traffic lights controlling northbound and southbound traffic on Little Neck Parkway at that intersection were synchronized and changed simultaneously. Officer Allen testified that the light at the southeast corner changed from yellow to red for Little Neck Parkway traffic when the petitioner's car, proceeding northbound on Little Neck Parkway, was about 60 feet from the intersection. At that time, he did not view the light located at the northwest corner which governed northbound traffic. The police officer testified that the petitioner drove through the intersection against the red traffic signal light. In our view, the police officer's testimony provided substantial evidence to support the determination that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d) (1) (see, Matter of Griffith v Appeals Bd., 115 A.D.2d 945).

We have considered the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Ballen v. Commr. of Motor Vehicles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 1989
147 A.D.2d 560 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Matter of Ballen v. Commr. of Motor Vehicles

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DENNIS A. BALLEN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 14, 1989

Citations

147 A.D.2d 560 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

People v. Benjamin

She only testified that when the light turned green in her direction, defendant “made a left-hand turn into…

Matter of Resciniti v. D.M.V

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs. The…