Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Great Neck Estates, Nassau County (Harold M. Hoffman, J.), rendered December 12, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of speeding.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was charged with speeding in violation of section 1180 (d) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. At the nonjury trial, a police officer testified that he had observed defendant's vehicle and had estimated that defendant was traveling at a rate of speed of 55 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone. The Justice Court found defendant guilty, and this appeal ensued.

It is well settled that even the uncorroborated testimony of a qualified police officer as to a vehicle's rate of speed is legally sufficient to support a conviction of violating section 1180 (d) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law so long as "the variance between the estimated speed and maximum permissible speed is sufficiently wide so that [the factfinder] may be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant exceeded the permissible limit" (People v Olsen, 22 NY2d 230, 232 [1968]; see e.g. People v Kogosov, 15 Misc 3d 139[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50944[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]; People v Ramaker, 9 Misc 3d 131[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51592[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]; People v Crawford, 5 Misc 3d 137[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51558[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004]). In this case, the variance between defendant's speed and the speed limit was "sufficiently wide" to permit that inference, as it exceeded the 20 miles per hour variance deemed "clearly sufficient" to support a conviction (People v Olsen, 22 NY2d at 232).

Defendant failed to offer any competent evidence challenging the validity of the posted speed limit. We note that to the extent defendant argues that pursuant to the Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices the posted speed limit involved herein was invalid, such manual merely gives "guidance" as to "recommended, but not mandatory, practice" and advises that there are various factors which may be considered in the establishment of speed limits.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum and Molia, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: February 08, 2010