Opinion
2019-998 W CR
04-15-2021
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dolores A. TILFORD, Appellant.
Dolores A. Tilford, appellant pro se. Westchester County District Attorney, for respondent (no brief filed).
Dolores A. Tilford, appellant pro se.
Westchester County District Attorney, for respondent (no brief filed).
PRESENT: TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, P.J., ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, TIMOTHY S. DRISCOLL, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Justice Court for a new trial.
Defendant was charged in a simplified traffic information with speeding ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180-a ) for driving 78 miles per hour (mph) in a 55-mph zone. A nonjury trial was held on April 17, 2019 during which the police officer who issued the ticket and defendant testified. That same date, the court issued a written verdict of guilty and sentenced defendant to pay a fine. Defendant filed an affidavit of errors (see CPL 460.10 [3] [a] - [c] ).
In its return to defendant's affidavit of errors (see CPL 460.10 [3] [d] ), the Justice Court stated that "the People, through the testimony at trial, had proven their case by the required preponderance of the evidence." This statement was plainly erroneous, as the People's burden of proof in this criminal matter was the more stringent beyond a reasonable doubt standard (see e.g. People v Fallah-Braimah , 57 Misc 3d 144[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51445[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2017]; People v Schlessinger , 35 Misc 3d 150[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51122[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]). As the court's application of a lesser burden of proof than required is "not subject to harmless error analysis" ( People v Garcia , 255 AD2d 266, 268 [1998] ), we reverse the judgment of conviction and remit the matter to the Justice Court for a new trial. In view of the foregoing, we need not reach defendant's remaining contentions, and note that we do not consider matters that are based on allegations and evidence which are dehors the record.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Justice Court for a new trial.
RUDERMAN, P.J., EMERSON and DRISCOLL, JJ., concur.