Defendant M.J. DeFeo ("Defendant" or "DeFeo") was issued a parking summons on May, 17, 2008 by Police Officer Aaron Goldstein for parking in a space reserved for handicapped parking without a handicapped permit. Defendant was not in her vehicle at the time the ticket was issued. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty to the alleged violation, and a non-jury trial took place on June 12, 2008. Officer Goldstein was the sole witness for the People, and DeFeo the lone witness for the defense. Defendant introduced at trial a photocopy of a handicapped permit tag that she stated had been issued to her. The copy of the tag so introduced depicts a permit of a type with a hook on one end plainly designed to be hung from the rearview mirror of a car with the universal handicapped symbol depicted below.

In order to lawfully park in a space designated for use by the handicapped, a motorist must fulfill two prerequisites under the statute (§ 1203-a, et seq., of the Vehicle and Traffic Law) and the local law implementing it (here, § 312-49 of the New Rochelle City Code): he or she must have been issued a valid permit to park in such spaces (the "handicapped permit" or the "permit") and he or she must "display" the permit in his or her vehicle. The statute thus [*2]resembles other provisions of the Vehicle and Traffic Law that require both the issuance of documents and the display of them or their indicia on the owner's vehicle. (See, e.g., Vehicle and Traffic Law § 306 (a) ( inspection sticker must be "displayed upon the vehicle."); Vehicle and Traffic Law § 2282 and 2283 (requirement that an owner of an All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) obtain and "display on the vehicle" the ATV registration); Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401 (4) (display of registration). In the instant case, the People do not challenge Defendant's testimony that she had been issued and possessed a valid handicapped permit at all relevant times. The sole issue is whether the permit was "displayed" in her vehicle within the meaning of the statute and local law. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that it was not so displayed.

The salient facts adduced at trial are essentially undisputed. Defendant admits that she parked in a properly marked space reserved for vehicles with handicapped permits. Officer Goldstein observed her vehicle parked at such a location, but did not see a handicapped sticker on her license plate or a permit tag either hanging from the rearview mirror or, for that matter, anywhere in or on the vehicle. He then issued a summons. Defendant testified that she did "display" her handicapped permit, but not by hanging it from her rearview mirror. Instead, she placed it on her vehicle's dashboard. Officer Goldstein testified that although he was constrained to look at or towards the vehicle's dashboard to a certain extent in order to view and obtain the

vehicle's registration information affixed to the car's windshield for purposes of writing the summons, he did not observe the permit on the dashboard. The Court will nevertheless assume, for purposes of this decision, that Defendant had placed the permit on the dashboard.

The issue before the Court thus boils down to whether a driver who obtains a valid handicapped parking permit in the form issued to Defendant herein that is, with a hook at one end is required to display it in the manner plainly intended by hanging it from the rearview mirror or may the driver "display" it in some other location presumably visible to a police officer. In view of the pertinent statutory language, this issue is not free from difficulty.

The pre-printed ticket issued by Officer Goldstein states that Defendant violated � 312.49 of the New Rochelle City Code. Section 312.49 provides that "[no] person shall park or stand any vehicle" in a designated handicapped parking space "except a vehicle displaying a valid handicapped identification or insignia." Although � 312.49 mandates that the handicapped permit be displayed, it does not prescribe the precise manner of so doing. The section of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law pursuant to which the City Code Section was enacted,� 1200.3a, et seq., offers no additional guidance.

Despite this lack of precision, common sense would dictate that placing the permit in any location potentially observable to a police officer would not accord with the statutory prescription that the permit be "displayed." For example, if a permit of the type at issue here were left on the back seat, the rear window, even on the car's floor, it might well be observable, upon thorough inspection, to a reasonably diligent police officer. However, interpreting the statute to a sanction a "display" in such a manner would require an officer to spend precious additional time in a potentially futile quest for the permit. Indeed, such an interpretation would

stand the statute which places the burden on the driver to "display" the permit on its head by [*3]placing the onus on the police officer to find, rather than a driver to show, that he or she has a right to park where he or she did. Put simply, police officers surely have better things to do with their time than conduct a full-blown vehicle search for a permit which should have been placed where it belonged. Such an interpretation would also run counter to the standard dictionary definition of the word "display" which connotes an active effort to "put or spread before the view", "to make evident" or "exhibit ostentatiously" (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.)

Indeed, Defendant's statement at trial that "sun glare" may have prevented Officer Goldstein from seeing the permit through the windshield and that such circumstance should somehow absolve Defendant of responsibility proves too much. It was doubtless because of such a potential problem that the permit was designed to be displayed as it should be hanging from the rearview mirror so that a patrolman could anticipate its proper location. Placing it in some other location, obvious to the driver and possibly others, may not be so evident to an officer trained to expect it where it is intended to be.

Accordingly, the only reasonable interpretation of the statute is to import the requirement that the permit be properly displayed that is, displayed in the evident manner intended. In the instant case, the permit supplied to Defendant and all others similarly situated was made with a hook clearly designed to be hung from the rearview mirror, not flung on the dashboard, or on a seat or the car floor. Thus, in the case of this type of permit, a proper "display" in accordance with that statutory directive is to have it hang from the rearview mirror a location readily

visible to and expected by a police officer. If the permit is not in its proper location, it is not properly displayed; and if the issuing officer fails to see it, he or she is under no obligation to search it out. In short, the statute places the burden on the motorist to see to it that the permit is placed where it belongs and it is the motorist who runs the risk if the permit is not so displayed and the police officer fails to see it.

The Court does not address the issue of whether a summons should issue when a handicapped permit is not properly displayed but the officer nonetheless sees it, since that issue is not before the Court. In the instant case, the undisputed fact is that the permit was not properly displayed, and that Officer Goldstein did not observe it.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant violated � 312.49 of the City Code. As far as sentencing is concerned, the Court will give weight to the fact that Defendant has a valid handicapped permit, and not impose a fine, but a one-year Conditional Discharge with the mandatory $30.00 surcharge. The surcharge is to be paid no later than August 29, 2008.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.

DATED: New Rochelle, New York

July 30, 2008 [*4]

________________________________

John P. Colangelo

City Court Judge