Opinion
2014-2466 N C.
02-22-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Martin DAVIDOWITZ, Appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York City (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill and Jeanette Lifschitz of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York City (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill and Jeanette Lifschitz of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT: MARANO, P.J., IANNACCI and GARGUILO, JJ.
Opinion
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Nassau County Traffic and Violations Agency (Elizabeth D. Pessala, J.H.O.), entered August 6, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, imposed a $50 civil liability upon defendant based on a “red-light camera” violation. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
This action was commenced to impose civil liability upon defendant as the owner of a vehicle which had been recorded by a camera failing to stop at a red light at the intersection of New Hyde Park Road and Marcus Avenue, in violation of Local Law No. 12 (2009) of the County of Nassau (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1111–b, 1111[d] ). At a nonjury trial, the People's evidence consisted of photographs of defendant's vehicle at the scene, a video, and a certificate by a technician certifying that she had reviewed the video and photographs and had determined that defendant's vehicle had not stopped at a red light. This evidence established, prima facie, defendant's liability (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111–b[d] ).
Defendant's contention that the notice of liability must be dismissed on the ground that it did not comply with the requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 238 lacks merit, since that section does not apply in actions to impose a civil liability for a “red-light camera” violation. Rather, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 238 applies where the operator of a vehicle has been served with a “notice of violation” pursuant to which he or she may plead either guilty or not guilty to the violation alleged in the notice of violation. The procedures adopted for commencing an action to impose a civil liability based on a “red-light camera” violation require that the notice state, among other things, the time and place of the infraction, the instrument that recorded the violation, the manner in which the owner may contest liability, and the consequences of failing to do so in the prescribed manner (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111–b [g] [1]–[4] ). An action to impose liability represents a new remedy and class of action (Nestor v. McDowell, 81 N.Y.2d 410, 415, 599 N.Y.S.2d 507, 615 N.E.2d 991 [1993] ), which the legislature is empowered to enact and, as the action is civil in nature (see People v. Nager, 34 Misc.3d 135[A], 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 52390[U], 2011 WL 6934406 [App.Term, 2d Dept., 9th & 10th Jud.Dists.2011]; Krieger v. City of Rochester, 42 Misc.3d 753, 978 N.Y.S.2d 588 [Sup.Ct., Monroe County 2013] ; County of Nassau v. Levine, 29 Misc.3d 474, 482, 907 N.Y.S.2d 563 [Nassau Dist.Ct.2010] ; James M. Rose, New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 26:12.50, 2013 Cum. Supp. at 294 [2d ed.] ), the procedures set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111–b for the commencement of the action supersede the CPLR and UDCA commencement requirements (see County of Suffolk v. Caldone, 45 Misc.3d 1, 3, 992 N.Y.S.2d 841 [App.Term, 2d Dept., 9th & 10th Jud.Dists.2014] ).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.