New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
December 10, 2012
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
JOHN GILLIGAN, APPELLANT.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Nassau County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (Daniel J. Cotter, J.H.O.), entered January 19, 2011.
People v Gilligan (John)
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
PRESENT: NICOLAI, P.J., IANNACCI and LaSALLE, JJ
The judgment, after a non-jury trial, imposed a $50 civil liability, plus surcharge, upon defendant as the owner of a vehicle which failed to stop at a red light.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
This action was commenced to impose a civil liability upon defendant as the owner of a vehicle which was recorded by a "traffic-control signal photo violation-monitoring" device failing to comply with a traffic-control indication in violation of Local Law No. 12 (2009) of the County of Nassau, which established title 72 "Vehicle Owner Liability For Failure Of Operator To Comply With Traffic-Control Indications" (see also Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111-b). Pursuant to section 2 (b) of title 72, a "traffic-control signal photo violation-monitoring" device, commonly referred to as a red-light camera, is a vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with a traffic-control signal which automatically produces two or more photographs, a videotape, or other recorded images of each vehicle at the time it is operated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d).
It was alleged in the notice of liability that defendant's vehicle did not stop at a red light on September 22, 2010, at 12:59 P.M., at the intersection of New Hyde Park Road and Marcus Avenue. The notice advised defendant that the recorded images and video of the offense would be submitted as evidence in the proceeding. At the hearing, the People entered into evidence a series of photographs depicting defendant's vehicle, the red light involved, and the location of the subject violation, as well as a video of the events charged in this matter. Additionally, the People entered into evidence a technician's certificate certifying the violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d) and stating that the information received from the Department of Motor Vehicles was compared with the images on the videotape and the photographs, and ascertained to be the same. The certificate further stated that defendant's vehicle did not come to a full stop at the red traffic light nor did it remain there until the light turned green. Defendant did not deny that he was the owner of the vehicle or that the vehicle was driven through the red light. The court found defendant liable and imposed a civil liability upon him in the sum of $50, plus surcharge.
Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111-b (d) and section 3 (b) of title 72, the technician's certificate constituted prima facie evidence of the violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d), which defendant failed to rebut. We need not reach defendant's contention regarding the duration of the amber light, since the photographs showed that defendant's vehicle had not entered the intersection until after the traffic light had already been red for, at least, 2.4 seconds. We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit or unpreserved for appellate review.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Nicolai, P.J., Iannacci and LaSalle, JJ., concur. Decision Date: December 10, 2012
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.