Opinion
2018-73 W CR
05-02-2019
Owen A. Bruce, appellant pro se. Westchester County District Attorney, for respondent (no brief filed).
Owen A. Bruce, appellant pro se.
Westchester County District Attorney, for respondent (no brief filed).
PRESENT: BRUCE E. TOLBERT, J.P., TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, JJ
Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of New Rochelle, Westchester County (Anthony A. Carbone, J.), rendered October 20, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of overtaking and passing a stopped school bus, and imposed sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Defendant was charged with overtaking and passing a stopped school bus ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1174 [a] ). At a nonjury trial, the complaining officer testified that he had seen a school bus come to a complete stop in the northbound lane of North Avenue at the intersection of The Boulevard. The school bus activated its flashing red lights and deployed its stop sign as children disembarked. The officer observed defendant pass the school bus as defendant was traveling in the southbound lane of traffic. Defendant testified that there had been no bus present at that intersection. Following the trial, defendant was convicted of the charged offense. Defendant appeals, arguing, in effect, that his conviction was against the weight of the evidence.
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [2] ; People v. Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007] ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor (see People v. Mateo , 2 NY3d 383, 409 [2004] ; People v. Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987] ). Upon our independent review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the City Court's credibility determinations and, as a result, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero , 7 NY3d 633 [2006] ).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
TOLBERT, J.P., RUDERMAN and EMERSON, JJ., concur.