Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Philipstown, Putnam County (Stephen G. Tomann, J.), rendered July 19, 2010.
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 15, 2012
PRESENT: NICOLAI, P.J., MOLIA and IANNACCI, JJ
The judgment convicted defendant, after a non-jury trial, of speeding.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Defendant was charged in a simplified traffic information with speeding (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 [d]). At a non-jury trial, the arresting trooper testified that he was qualified to estimate the speed of moving vehicles, based on, among other things, completing extensive practical training at the police academy, which included conducting visual estimates of the speed of 500 vehicles, and then completing 12 weeks of field training. Prior to commencing his shift on the day in question, he performed independent tuning fork tests of his radar unit and also verified the device with his speedometer. The trooper testified, that after observing defendant's vehicle for about 150-200 feet, he had visually estimated defendant's speed to be 70 miles per hour in a 50 miles per hour zone and then, using the radar unit, had determined that defendant's speed was 68 miles per hour.
Contrary to defendant's contention, calibration records are not needed to establish the accuracy of a radar device. A device's accuracy may be established by proof that an officer, who is a qualified radar operator, conducted tests indicating that the radar was functioning properly at the time of the incident (see Matter of Graf v Foschio, 102 AD2d 891 ; People v Susana, 29 Misc 3d 144[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52218[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]). Here, the People introduced the trooper's radar operation certificate, issued by the New York State Police. Furthermore, the trooper testified that he had conducted the appropriate tuning fork and calibration tests on the radar device. Therefore, the evidence that the trooper employed a properly calibrated radar device to measure defendant's speed at 68 miles per hour was legally sufficient to sustain the conviction (see People v Susana, 29 Misc 3d 144[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52218[U]; People v Cani,17 Misc 3d 134[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52167[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]). Moreover, even if the proof of the calibration of the radar was inadequate, a reading from an untested radar unit, coupled with a qualified officer's visual estimate, suffices to prove the offense (see People v Dusing, 5 NY2d 126, 128 ; People v Susana, 29 Misc 3d 144[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52218[U]; People v Ramaker, 9 Misc 3d 131[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51592[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Nicolai, P.J., Molia and Iannacci, JJ., concur. Decision