People ex rel. McCann v. Martirano
| Decision Date | 02 November 1966 |
| Citation | 275 N.Y.S.2d 215,52 Misc.2d 64 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Mc CANN and Cussisi, Respondent, v. Edith J. MARTIRANO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Leonard Rubenfeld, Dist. Atty., for the People.
McGoey & Martirano, New Rochelle, for defendant.
Defendant appeals from a speeding conviction rendered in the Court of Special Sessions of the Village of Bronxville, whereby defendant was found guilty of violating an ordinance governing the speed of vehicles, in that defendant was operating her automobile at a rate of 44 m.p.h. in a 30 m.p.h. zone.
Defendant's affidavit of appeal enumerates a number of claimed errors which defendant asserts would entitled her to reversal. There is but one claimed error that this Court need consider; that is, that it was not sufficiently established in the lower court that the radar unit was accurate. The People called two witnesses, both patrolmen employed by the Village of Bronxville. The transcript of the testimony indicates the following with respect to the setting up of the radar on the day of the instant claimed violation.
There are other references to the setting up and testing of the radar; but they in no way expand the above testimony.
In the case of People v. Sachs, 1 Misc.2d 148, the judge, at page 156, 147 N.Y.S.2d 801, at page 808 of that opinion, by way of dicta sets forth his opinion as to the requirements of proof in order to establish the accuracy of a particular radar unit. In the instant case the only evidence concerning this defendant's speed is the radar reading. In order for her conviction to be sustained, that radar reading must have been taken from a tested radar unit. (People v. Heyser, 2 N.Y.2d 390, at page 393, 161 N.Y.S.2d 36, at page 37, 141 N.E.2d 553, at page 554.)
This Court is not taking a position that the criteria set forth in the Sachs case must be followed to the absolute letter. It is, however, taking the position that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Readding
...N.E.2d 408 (App.Ct.1967), such proof has been elsewhere held to be insufficient evidence of accuracy. People ex rel. McCann v. Martirano, 52 Misc.2d 64, 275 N.Y.S.2d 215 (Co.Ct.1966). In People v. Martirano, supra, the court made the following " * * * In this case there is no proof that the......
-
State v. Overton
...226 N.E.2d 408 (App.Ct.1967). Such proof has elsewhere been held to be insufficient evidence of accuracy. In People v. Martirano, 52 Misc.2d 64, 275 N.Y.S.2d 215 (Cty.Ct.1966), the court * * * In this case there is no proof that the turning fork was accurate. It is certainly not beyond the ......
-
People v. Walker
...Biesser v. Holland, 208 Va. 167, 156 S.E.2d 792 (1967); St. Louis v. Boecker, 370 S.W.2d 731 (Mo.App.1963); People ex rel. McCann v. Martirano, 52 Misc.2d 64, 275 N.Y.S.2d 215 (1966). One concern is whether the use of one tuning fork, which produces a reading at only one speed, can provide ......
-
People v. Persons
...County, 1954); People of City of Rochester v. Torpey, 204 Misc. 1023, 128 N.Y.S.2d 864 (Monroe County Court, 1953); People v. Martiano, 52 Misc.2d 64, 275 N.Y.S.2d 215 (Westchester County Court, The proof submitted by the People consisted of testimony of duly qualified experts who were in c......