| People v Nelson (Frank) |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 50851(U) [56 Misc 3d 129(A)] |
| Decided on June 22, 2017 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Arthur V. Graseck, Esq., for appellant. Suffolk County Traffic Prosecutor's Office (Justin W. Smiloff, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (Paul H. Senzer, J.H.O.), rendered July 23, 2015. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, convicted defendant of speeding.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
On November 30, 2014, the People charged defendant in a simplified traffic information with speeding (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 [b]), alleging that, on that date, at 2:37 p.m., defendant had operated his motor vehicle at a speed of 80 miles per hour in a 55 miles per hour speed zone. At a nonjury trial, the complaining police officer testified that he had been trained to estimate the speed of a moving vehicle to within five miles per hour of its actual speed and that he had observed defendant traveling 80 miles per hour on a road with a 55 miles per hour speed limit. The officer further testified that he had used a properly calibrated laser device to measure defendant's speed at 80 miles per hour. Following the trial, the District Court found defendant guilty of speeding (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 [b]).
Upon a review of the record, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 343 [2007]). There was testimony [*2]from a qualified police officer as to his visual estimate of the speed of defendant's vehicle, which exceeded the speed limit by 25 miles per hour (see People v Olsen, 22 NY2d 230, 232 [1968]; People v Les, 36 Misc 3d 138[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51439[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]). In addition, there was evidence that the officer had employed a properly calibrated laser device, which had measured defendant's speed at 80 miles per hour (see People v Les, 36 Misc 3d 138[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51439[U], *1).
Contrary to defendant's contention, the District Court neither deprived defendant of the right to present a defense nor did the court improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding or limiting testimony (see People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241 [1969]).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
TOLBERT, J.P., GARGUILO and BRANDS, JJ., concur.