Opinion
No. 2011–1912 RO CR.
2012-06-13
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. B.M. SCHLESSINGER, Appellant.
Present: NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Orangetown, Rockland County (Paul B. Phinney, III, J.), rendered March 11, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of speeding.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
On April 1, 2009, the People filed a simplified traffic information charging defendant with speeding (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180[d] ). The information alleged that on that date, at about 12:06 P.M., defendant had operated his motor vehicle at 70 miles per hour in a 50 miles per hour speed zone. At the conclusion of the People's case at a nonjury trial, defendant's counsel moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument on the ground that the People had failed to prove the driver's identity beyond a reasonable doubt. The Justice Court denied the motion and, following the trial, found defendant guilty of the charged offense. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial proof failed to establish that he had been the operator of the vehicle to whom the officer had issued the uniform traffic ticket.
As the simplified traffic information contained entries sufficient to establish the identity of the person thereby charged, i.e., defendant herein, and as the complainant police officer testified that he had issued a uniform traffic ticket to the operator of the vehicle based on the driver's paperwork ( see People v. Klepper, 25 N.Y.2d 46, 48 [1969];People v. Zelouf, 31 Misc.3d 127[A], 2011 N.Y. Slip Op 50445[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011]; People v. Abrahams, NYLJ, Sept. 6, 1991 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; People v. Jeck–Tisch, NYLJ, Aug. 25, 1988 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists] ), we find that the proof established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was the operator of the vehicle to whom the officer had issued the ticket.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.