Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Allen S. Mathers, J.H.O.), rendered May 8, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of speeding.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

The officer's testimony that he observed defendant's vehicle traveling at 100 miles an hour in a 45 mile-per-hour speed zone was admissible and legally sufficient to support the conviction, given the officer's training, experience, and his level of accuracy in making such estimates (People v Olsen, 22 NY2d 230, 232 [1968]; see e.g. People v Smith, 13 Misc 3d 131[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51862[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]), without regard to the sufficiency of the evidence as to the calibration and accuracy of the laser device.

The use of judicial hearing officers, who employ the sentencing authority of the District Courts, to try traffic infraction cases has been judicially sanctioned (Matter of Dolce v Nassau County Traffic & Parking Violations Agency, 7 NY3d 492 [2006]), and defendant did not establish that he duly notified the New York State Attorney General of his constitutional challenge to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1690 (CPLR 1012 [b]; People v Crespi, 51 AD3d 1036 [2008]; see also Executive Law § 71), which constitutes a bar to consideration of the matter by this court.

There is no right to a jury trial where, as here, the maximum possible incarceration is six months or less (People v Urbaez, 10 NY3d 773 [2008]), and as defendant has served his sentence, his challenge to the severity of the sentence is academic (People v Conklin, 46 AD3d [*2]698 [2007]; People v Nicholsen, 31 AD3d 468 [2006]; People v O'Connor, 19 Misc 3d 139[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50901[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]).
McCabe, J.P., Tanenbaum and Molia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 30, 2008