People v. Churton
| Decision Date | 15 September 1971 |
| Citation | 67 Misc.2d 645,324 N.Y.S.2d 500 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Walter CHURTON, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Villiage Court |
Road was not properly posted, and state speed limit rather than lower village speed limit applied, where defendant at time of his arrest had passed only one 18-inch by 24-inch R5C sign. Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1110, 1680, 1682.
Defendant was given a Uniform Traffic Summons on July 21, 1971 charging him with traveling 38 m.p.h. in a 25 m.p.h. zone on Montgomery Street in the Village of Rhinebeck, New York. The summons was issued by a member of the Dutchess County Sheriff's Office on special assignment in the Village, after being notified that the defendant was exceeding the legal limit by another member of the said Sheriff's Department, operating a radar set. On his arraignment, defendant entered a plea of not guilty and trial was held on August 26, 1971.
At the trial both the people and defendant represented themselves without the aid of counsel. As a result of the trial the main issue which developed was whether the speed zone was properly posted in accordance with the State Law and Regulations. It is to this issue that we address ourselves.
On direct testimony, defendant testified as he came into Montgomery Street from Mt. Rutsen Road (Montgomery Street being an extension of Mt. Rutsen Road) he passed a poorly visible 25 m.p.h. speed sign which he testified measured 18 inches by 24 inches--white with black letters. The sign was partly obscured by brush as one entered Montgomery Street from Mt. Rutsen Road. Defendant contended that since Montgomery Street was not properly posted the general State speed limit prevailed and that he did not exceed this limit. In support of his position, defendant directed the Court's attention to Vehicle & Traffic Law §§ 1110(b) and 1680, together with official rules and regulations of the Department of Transportation. The arresting officers, on the other hand, testified as to the sufficiency of the radar and brought into issue whether the sign in question was visible. The sufficiency of the radar was not questioned by the defendant herein and therefore is deemed to not have been a controverted item and for the purpose of this decision shall be deemed to have been sufficiently proven.
Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1110 requires the motorist to obey the instructions of any official traffic control device, unless ordered otherwise by a traffic or police officer. The section also provides that in the event that official signs are not in proper position and sufficiently legible to be seen by the ordinary person, obedience to them cannot be enforced. Section 1680 of the Vehicle & Traffic Law empowers the Commissioner of Transportation to adopt a manual of uniform traffic devices, which includes traffic signs. Local authorities are required to install traffic control signs in accordance with this manual, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1682. Therefore, it is necessary to look at the above mentioned manual for appropriate guidance.
Defendant cites Title 15 Official Compilation Codes Rules and Regulations of the State of New York (hereinafter cited as Title 15 NYCRR) §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cooper
...were properly made, People v. Salzburg, supra; People v. Asherman, supra ; see also, People v. Drachenberg and People v. Churton, 67 Misc.2d 645, 324 N.Y.S.2d 500 (Vill.Ct., Rhinebeck, (d) The court may not take independent judicial notice of the particulars of the sign even though the Cour......
-
Friedland v. Diamond
... ... First, I know of no case in this state, nor has any been drawn to my attention, that specifically deals with tenting on private property by people other than the owners or their guests. Section 89, subdivision 69 of the Village Law relates solely [67 Misc.2d 643] to 'house trailer camps, ... ...
-
People v. Hall
...establish that the hypothetical route in issue was marked in conformity with Department of Transportation Regulations, People v. Churton, 67 Misc.2d 645, 324 N.Y.S.2d 500; not otherwise cited; (Justice Ct. Vill. of Rhinebeck, 1971), or, at the very least, that the signs gave this defendant ......
-
People v. Heyman
...the Vehicle and Traffic Law itself prohibits such speeds anywhere on any public highway in the State of New York Cf. People v. Churton, 67 Misc.2d 645, 324 N.Y.S.2d 500 (Justice Court, Village of Rhinebeck, 1971.) at page 648, 324 N.Y.S.2d 500; People v. Hall, 108 Misc.2d 507, 437 N.Y.S.2d ......