People v. Aubin
| Decision Date | 30 August 1962 |
| Citation | 231 N.Y.S.2d 466 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York v. George AUBIN, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Angus G. Saunders, Dist. Atty. of Jefferson County, Watertown, Robert Wisner, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel, for the People.
Carmen Macaluso, Watertown, for defendant.
After a trial before Honorable Ernest J. Stalder, Justice of the Peace of the Town of LeRay, on April 11, 1962, the defendant was convicted of Violation of Section 1180, Subdivision (b) 2 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Judgment of Conviction was entered on the same day.
The Section referred to limits the speed of motor vehicles on the public highway to fifty miles an hour, unless a different maximum speed has been established by the State Traffic Commission.
Defendant has appealed. Several grounds are set forth in the affidavit of errors, which the defendant claims require that the conviction be reversed. One of his claims is, that the People failed to prove that the State Traffic Commission had not established a higher maximum speed than fifty miles an hour.
To show that no greater speed than fifty miles an hour is allowed, the prosecution may, upon proper proof, have the benefit of the presumption contained in Section 1620 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. In substance, it is provided, that if there are no signs installed by the State Traffic Commission allowing a greater speed than fifty miles an hour, such fact shall be presumptive evidence that said Commission has not established a higher maximum speed limit than the fifty miles an hour statutory limit.
Prior to the enactment of the Statutes relating to the presumption mentioned, it was necessary for the People to rely on a Certificate from the State Traffic Commission, stating that the maximum speed limit was fifty miles an hour, in a case of this nature. Although it is no longer necessary to introduce into evidence such a Certificate, some evidence must be produced upon a trial to show that the State Traffic Commission has not established a higher maximum speed limit than the fifty miles an hour, in order to have the benefit of the presumption mentioned. Such evidence could be in the form of testimony of a witness that no signs were installed, or present, along the highway to change the maximum speed limit.
On the record here, there was no such evidence at the trial. Since there was no proof of the absence of signs establishing a higher maximum speed limit than the fifty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mayoue
...evidence that no greater speed limit was established. People v. Shapiro, 7 N.Y.2d 370, 197 N.Y.S.2d 715, 165 N.E.2d 564 (1960); People v. Aubin, 231 N.Y.S.2d 466 (Co.Ct., Jefferson Co. Even though the Court knows that the signs were properly posted, judicial notice cannot be taken of such p......
-
People v. Leatherbarrow
...relied upon by the People unless there has been some testimony as to the absence of signs indicating a higher limit. (See People v. Aubin, Co.Ct., 231 N.Y.S.2d 466) But there is another method of establishing the applicability of the fifty-five mile per hour speed limit. A trial court may p......