Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Orangetown, Rockland County (Paul B. Phinney, III, J.), rendered February 26, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of speeding.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

After a nonjury trial, the Justice Court found defendant guilty of speeding (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 [d]). At the trial, a trooper testified that he could estimate the speed of moving vehicles to within five miles an hour of their actual speed. He further stated that he had observed defendant's vehicle and had estimated that it was traveling at 73 miles per hour in a 50-mile-per-hour zone. It is well settled that the uncorroborated testimony of a police officer, qualified to estimate the speed of moving vehicles, as to a vehicle's rate of speed is legally sufficient to support a conviction of speeding 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 also People v Gravagna, 26 Misc 3d 138[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50225[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]; 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]). The 23 mile-per-hour variance between the estimated speed of defendant's vehicle and the speed limit was clearly sufficient to support the conviction (see People v Olsen, 22 NY2d at 232; People v Gravagna, 26 Misc 3d 138[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50225[U]). Defendant's remaining contentions have no merit. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. [*2]

Nicolai, P.J., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 08, 2010