| People v DIDIO (JOHN) |
| 2006 NY Slip Op 52496(U) [14 Misc 3d 128(A)] |
| Decided on December 13, 2006 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 Justice Court of the Town of Greenburgh, Westchester County (Doris T. Friedman, J.), rendered September 29, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of speeding.
Judgment of conviction affirmed.
Defendant was convicted of speeding (Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1180 [d]) in that he was traveling at 81 miles per hour in a 45 mile-per-hour zone. Although the court below failed to prepare a Justice's return in response to the affidavit of errors, even if the various allegations of the affidavit of errors are taken as true and deemed admitted
by the court (see People v Feldes, 73 NY2d 661 [1989]), the affidavit of errors in this matter does not raise any reversible error. Defendant recounts the testimony of the issuing officer that the officer had training in estimation of speed and estimated that defendant was traveling at a rate of speed of approximately 80 miles per hour. Although defendant alleges in the affidavit that the officer apparently had no "documentation or paperwork supporting the accuracy of the radar equipment," submission of documentary evidence is not required, and defendant does not allege that no testimony upon the calibration of the radar detector was given. Where, as here, the officer's training is established, visual estimation alone is sufficient to support a conviction, especially when the disparity between the posted limit and the estimated speed of travel is as wide as in the present case (see People v Olsen, 22 NY2d 230 [1968]). Furthermore, under such [*2]circumstances, evidence of a radar reading is admissible in support of such testimony even without sufficient evidence of calibration (see People v Magri, 3 NY2d 562 [1958]; Gentile v Jackson, 273 AD2d 235 [2000]).
It should be noted that the speedy trial provisions of CPL 30.30 do not apply to the present matter, in which the charge was only a traffic infraction from the outset (see People v Mattute, 141 Misc 2d 988 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 1988]). Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Lippman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 13, 2006