| People v Nager (George) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 52390(U) [34 Misc 3d 135(A)] |
| Decided on December 23, 2011 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Nassau County Traffic and
Parking Violations Agency (Allen S. Mathers, J.H.O.), entered November 10, 2010. The
judgment, after a nonjury trial, imposed a $50 civil liability upon defendant as the owner of a
vehicle which failed to stop for a red light.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
This action was commenced to impose civil liability upon defendant as the owner of a vehicle whose operator failed to comply with a traffic-control indicator (Nassau County Law § 12-2009; see also Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111-b). It was alleged in the notice of liability that defendant's vehicle did not stop at a red light on June 30, 2010, at 2:32 P.M. The notice advised defendant that the recorded images and video of the offense would be submitted as evidence in the proceeding. Prior to trial, defendant moved to, among other things, dismiss the notice of liability on the ground that he was denied his constitutional right to confront witnesses in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The District Court denied the motion. At trial, evidence consisting of a certificate, affirmed by a technician employed by Nassau County, alleging inspection of the photographs and videotape, together with the [*2]photographs and videotape, were admitted into evidence without objection by defendant. The court found defendant liable and imposed civil liability upon him in the sum of $50.
On appeal, defendant contends, among other things, that he was denied the right to confront witnesses in violation of his Sixth Amendment right.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to confront witnesses who testify against them (see Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts, ___ US ___, 129 S Ct 2527 [2009]; Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]). As the instant proceeding is wholly civil in nature, the Confrontation Clause does not apply (see Village of Muttontown v Port Washington Holding Corp., 74 AD3d 793, 794 [2010]).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit or unpreserved for appellate review.
Tanenbaum, J.P., Nicolai and Molia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 23, 2011