[*1]
People v Seseri (Leonard)
2009 NY Slip Op 50052(U) [22 Misc 3d 129(A)]
Decided on January 12, 2009
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on January 12, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., MOLIA and SCHEINKMAN, JJ
2007-1573 OR CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Leonard Seseri, Appellant.


Appeal from judgments of the Justice Court of the Town of Wallkill, Orange County (Bonnie Kraham, J.), rendered August 21, 2007. The judgments convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of three charges of violating Transportation Law §


14-f (2).

Judgments of conviction affirmed.

Defendant was charged in three separate simplified traffic informations with transporting hazardous material in violation of Transportation Law § 14-f (2), to wit, failing to have hazardous material placards, failing to have shipping papers, and having materials which were not blocked or braced. The facts set forth in the court's return to the affidavit of errors are conclusive as to all controverted matters, and this court is bound thereby (see People v Mason, 307 NY 570, 574 [1954]; People v Ohberg, 6 Misc 3d 129[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50060[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]). Contrary to his contention, defendant was properly charged with the three violations of Transportation Law § 14-f (2) since he was the driver of the vehicle which was transporting hazardous materials without properly displaying hazardous material placards or having shipping papers, and which materials were not properly blocked or braced.

We find defendant's remaining arguments to be either without merit or to be based on information that is dehors the trial record. Defendant had a full and fair opportunity to present such evidence at trial. He has not shown that the trial court erred in its evaluation of the proof adduced at trial.

Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., Molia and Scheinkman, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: January 12, 2009