Summary
In People v. Marcus (19 A.D.2d 813, affd. 14 N.Y.2d 505) the court sustained a conviction for unlicensed operation but defined the public highway to include a sidewalk within the ambit of street, under section 134 Veh. Traf. of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, as the area between the curb and the property line.
Summary of this case from People v. HaulenbeekOpinion
October 17, 1963
Judgment convicting defendant of the crime of operating a motor vehicle on a public highway without a license, affirmed. We are constrained to hold that the proof shows a technical violation of the statute. The record establishes the defendant, unlicensed therefor, was operating a motor vehicle at an extremely moderate rate over a sidewalk adjacent to a gasoline station. Subdivision 4 of section 501 Veh. Traf. of the Vehicle and Traffic Law provides: "a. No person shall operate or drive a motor vehicle upon a public highway of this state unless he is duly licensed under this chapter". Subdivision 9 thereof states: "The violation of any of the provisions of this section shall constitute a misdemeanor". Section 134 of said statute defines public highway as: "Any highway, road, street, avenue, alley, public place, public driveway or any other public way." Section 144 defines sidewalk as the portion of the "street" between the curb and the property lines. We therefore hold a sidewalk to be within the ambit of a street as defined in section 134.
We dissent. There was no adequate proof that the place where the automobile was being operated was in fact part of the public highway — sidewalk or otherwise. Furthermore, there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the operation in question was such as the statute contemplates. The judgment of conviction should be reversed and the charge dismissed.