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 July 20, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, imposed a $50 civil liability, plus a $15 administrative fee, 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 Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1111-b, 1111 [d]). It was alleged in the notice of liability that defendant's vehicle did not stop at a red light on March 5, 2011 at "SB S OYSTER BAY RD" @ WOODBURY RD."

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. Defendant did not deny that he was the owner of the [*2]vehicle or that the vehicle was driven through the red light. 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 had been 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. The court found defendant liable and imposed a civil liability upon him in the sum of $50, plus a $15 administrative fee.

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111-b (d), the technician's certificate and video were prima facie evidence of a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d), which showing defendant failed to rebut.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Iannacci and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 30, 2013