Opinion
2008-2201 W CR.
Decided January 27, 2010.
Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Peekskill, Westchester County (William L. Maher, J.), rendered July 24, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of failing to stop at a stop sign.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
PRESENT: NICOLAI, P.J., TANENBAUM and MOLIA, JJ.
Defendant was convicted after a nonjury trial of failing to stop at a stop sign (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 [a]). The evidence adduced at trial included, inter alia, testimony by the complainant officer that he had an unobstructed view of the stop sign at the intersection of Maple, Hudson and Montross Avenues in Peekskill, that he observed defendant's vehicle proceeding westbound on Maple Avenue toward the intersection, that he observed defendant going at an estimated speed of 20 miles per hour through the intersection, that defendant "proceeded through the stop sign," and that defendant headed straight and westbound onto Hudson Avenue. Although the officer offered some unclear testimony, e.g., as to whether defendant passed stop signs before and/or after the subject intersection, his testimony was clear with regard to the subject intersection. There was also ample identification of defendant as the person who committed the offense.
"By failing to renew his motion for a trial order of dismissal at the close of [the] proof, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction" ( People v Pryor , 48 AD3d 1217 , 1218; see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61). In any event, we conclude that when the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 [a]; People v Braley , 5 Misc 3d 127[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51191[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 2004]).
The other issues raised herein are similarly lacking in merit or unpreserved for appellate review.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum and Molia, JJ., concur.