People v. Chin
| Citation | 409 N.Y.S.2d 500,96 Misc.2d 627 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Kenneth C. CHIN, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 17 October 1978 |
| Court | New York County Court |
Can a person steering an inoperable vehicle that is being towed be in violation of S319 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law?
The facts are not in dispute. On October 10, 1977 Patrolman Lawrence Olsen was assigned to cover an automobile accident which had occurred at the intersection of Sunrise Highway and North Village Avenue. When he arrived there he found two Cadillacs in the roadway and a van type truck at curbside. Both Cadillacs were owned by the D & G Fast Freight, Inc. The first Cadillac (Car 1) was towing the second Cadillac which Patrolman Olsen identified as the "Green Cadillac" (Car 2). A nonrigid towing device (either a rope or chain) was attached to the rear of Car 1 and tied to the front of Car 2. When Patrolman Olsen asked who was operating Car 2 , the Defendant, Kenneth Chin stated he was steering Car 2 and, as Car 1 was making a turn, he had misjudged the turn and Car 2 came into collision with the parked van. When asked to produce the customary documentation, the defendant could not produce an insurance card for Car 2 and he was issued a summons for violation of Section 319 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
Kenneth Chin was not born in the United States nor has he been here for many years. After attendance for three years, he graduated from South Side High School in 1972. However, at the trial he still had difficulty expressing himself or understanding some of the simpler language used. When the Court offered to obtain an interpreter he said that would not be necessary as he was accompanied at the trial by his employer, George Kurz, Sr., who is the operator of the local BP Service Station where Kenneth Chin is employed. He said that George Kurz, Sr., would assist him in any language difficulties. George Kurz, Jr., son of George Kurz, Sr., was and is an officer and stockholder of D & G Fast Freight, Inc. which owned both Cars 1 and 2. George Kurz, Jr., apparently had been the driver of Car 1.
This case raises several interesting points concerning a car in tow. Car 2 which was being towed, had current license plates and was properly registered. However, the engine was not running; it was definitely being towed and incapable of propelling itself.
The Police Officer testified as to a conversation with the defendant at the place of the accident. It was apparent to the Court that the defendant would not ordinarily use words such as those described by the witness. The reason for stressing this point was because of the use of the words "operate" and "misjudged". Questioning of the defendant indicated he did not even know the meaning of the word "misjudged."
What does the word "operate" mean under Section 319? Does it mean driving a car with the engine running? Does it mean steering a car when the engine is not running? A review of the cases cited under Section 319 are of little help. The cases cited under Section 1192 are of greater assistance.
In People v. Hoffman, 53 Misc.2d 1010, 280 N.Y.S.2d 169, Judge Lockman stated "While it does not require much to constitute 'operating a motor vehicle' (citing cases) the vehicle must at least be operable."
In People v. Marriott, 37 A.D.2d 868, 325 N.Y.S.2d 177, the Court found that a person "operates" a motor vehicle when he begins to use the mechanism of the automobile for the purpose of putting the automobile in motion.
It is not difficult to find that Car 2 was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Burn
...the vehicle was insured or not, cf. People v. Pender, 100 Misc.2d 846, 420 N.Y.S.2d 62 (Town Ct., Brighton, 1979), People v. Chin, 96 Misc.2d 627, 409 N.Y.S.2d 500 (Village Ct., Rockville Centre, The Statute in question, Vehicle & Traffic Law 319(3) creates the rebuttable presumption that "......
-
People v. Scherbner
... ... However, the presumption applies only where the driver is the owner of the vehicle. (People v Abney, 176 AD2d 1193 [4th Dept 1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 823 [1991]; People v Chin, 96 Misc 2d 627 ... 26 Misc.3d 799 ... 1978].) Moreover, even for an owner, a mere failure to produce such a card is generally not enough, alone, to prove the element of knowledge required for a conviction under the statute; rather, it is only presumptive evidence which requires the defendant to ... ...
-
People v. Briggs
...Hakimi-Fard, 137 Misc.2d 116, 519 N.Y.S.2d 766, the defendant was steering a disabled vehicle that was being pushed. In People v. Chin, 96 Misc.2d 627, 409 N.Y.S.2d 500, the defendant was steering a vehicle that was being towed by a nonrigid towing device. Both courts reasoned that the defe......
-
People v. Hakimi-Fard
...a mechanism of the automobile for the purpose of putting it in motion and is, therefore, "operating" the vehicle. (See People v. Chin, 96 Misc.2d 627, 409 N.Y.S.2d 500; People v. Marriott, 37 A.D.2d 868, 325 N.Y.S.2d 177; Matter of Prudhomme v. Hults, 27 A.D.2d 234, 278 N.Y.S.2d VTL, § 375(......