People v. Cooper
| Decision Date | 30 November 1981 |
| Citation | 112 Misc.2d 277,446 N.Y.S.2d 965 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Richard COOPER, Jr., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Town Court |
Alfred B. Mainetti, Kingston, for defendant.
John R. King, Dist. Atty., for plaintiff.
Defendant was charged with violation of Vehicle & Traffic Law sec. 1110(a). At the trial, the arresting officer testified that on October 7, 1981, while on routine patrol he observed Defendant's vehicle make an illegal left hand turn off the southerly ramp leading from New York State Route 308 onto New York State Route 9G. The trooper stated that he was traveling south on Route 9G and had just crossed the Route 308 overpass when he spotted Defendant's vehicle standing at the end of the ramp with its left signal on. The trooper proceeded a short distance south of the ramp, stopped on the side of the road and observed Defendant completing the left hand turn.
Trooper McGuire testified that he knew there was a no left hand sign on this ramp. He described the traffic control device prohibiting a left hand turn as a "sign with an arrow on the left with a circle with the crosses across it on the left hand side (of the ramp) and on the right hand side (of the ramp) you will see the exact same sign with a sign underneath it 'no left turn' and there is also a stop sign at the intersection." He went on to state that he knew the sign to be present at the time of violation. He did not otherwise provide any factual information as to the size, shape, height above ground, background color, color of letters or testify as to the location of the signs in regard to the intersection they were designated to control. He commented that he understood the signs to be universal signs adopted by the New York Department of Transportation. The court was asked to take judicial notice of the relevent law.
Defendant's attorney made certain objections to the trooper's testimony and moved at the end of the case that it be dismissed on the ground that the people did not prove Defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is clear that the trooper personally observed a vehicle driven by Defendant making a left hand turn from the southerly ramp off Route 308, southbound onto Route 9G. However, there is a serious question as to whether there were adequate facts presented concerning the traffic control device Defendant is alleged to have violated.
Vehicle & Traffic Law sec. 1110(a) states that "Every person shall obey the instructions of any official traffic control device applicable to him placed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, unless otherwise directed by a traffic or police officer...." Subsection (b) creates the exception that subsection (a) cannot be enforced against an alleged violator "if at the time and place of the alleged violation an official sign is not in proper position and sufficiently legible to be seen by an ordinarily observant person."
Subsection (c) and (d) of sec. 1110 create two presumptions in favor of the People, namely:
(1) That if the traffic control device is placed in position approximately conforming to the requirements of the Vehicle & Traffic Law it shall be deemed to have been placed by official act or direction of lawful authority; and
(2) If the device is placed in conformity with the Vehicle & Traffic Law and "proporting to conform to the lawful requirements pertaining to such devices" it shall be presumed to comply with the requirements of the Vehicle & Traffic Law unless the defendant establishes otherwise by competent evidence.
Vehicle & Traffic Law sec. 1680(a) directs the Commissioner to install, operate, maintain and remove traffic control devices in conformity with a manual and specifications. The manual used is the New York State Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices as published in Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York (17 NYCRR and 15 NYCRR).
The sign Defendant is alleged to have violated is termed a regulatory sign and is specifically described in 17 NYCRR 209.1. The normal sign is designated R18, 24"' X 24"' in size, with a 3/8"' margin and a 5/8"' border, with a white background, black and red legend and reflectorized. 17 NYCRR 209.1 further states the sign is to be used An appendix illustrates the typical positioning of the signs. Authority for the placement of the specific signs in question is found in 15 NYCRR 5013.26.
It is the People's burden to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the essential facts of the case. The accused has no burden to sustain. He is presumed to be innocent, People v. Radzinski, 24 Misc.2d 109, 205 N.Y.S.2d 440 (County Court, Orleans County, 1960). In doing so the People must present evidence of sufficient quality as to the signs posted since the court cannot judicially take notice of the particulars of the sign even though the Judge may be personally familiar with the intersection. People v. Silcox, 34 Misc.2d 335, 228 N.Y.S.2d 634 (County Court, Orleans Co., 1962), People v. Zambito, 21 Misc.2d 815, 194 N.Y.S.2d 724 (County Court, Ulster Co. 1959), the record must be sufficient in and of itself to enable an Appellate Judge not personally familiar with the area to make an intelligent review.
Only a few cases address themselves to the particulars that the people must prove concerning the posting of a traffic regulatory sign. Most of this law predates the enactment of the current Statute and was decided by lower courts. Nevertheless, these cases offer some guidance to the handling of the present situation.
It is first important to review the current law and the prior cases in order to determine what proof is necessary under the present law. The present Statute is designed to avoid the necessity of proving strict compliance in respect to the posting of traffic control device as was the case prior to the Court of Appeals decision in People v. Lathrop, 3 N.Y.2d 551, 170 N.Y.S.2d 326 (1958), see People v. Wadsworth, 200 Misc. 1049, 1050, 108 N.Y.S.2d 224 (County Court, Nassau Co. 1950), People v. Radzinski, supra. In Lathrop, supra the Court noted that the record before it concerning the posting of village speed signs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Chittenden
...generally, by testimony as to the location, description, and observability of the sign alleged to have been disobeyed (see People v. Cooper, 112 Misc.2d 277, 280 [Town of Rhinebeck Justice Court 1981]; Joseph R. Carrieri, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 62A, Vehicle ......
-
People v. Northrup
...fair notice of the traffic regulation. People v. Lathrop, 3 N.Y.2d 551, 553, 170 N.Y.S.2d 326, 147 N.E.2d 722 (1958); People v. Cooper, 112 Misc.2d 277, 446 N.Y.S.2d 965 (Dutchess Co. Justice As authorized by section 1680 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, the requirements for turn prohibition......
-
People v. Gbadebo
...generally, by testimony as to the location, description, and observability of the sign alleged to have been disobeyed (see People v. Cooper, 112 Misc.2d 277, 280 [Town of Rhinebeck Justice Court 1981]; Joseph R. Carrieri, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 62A, Vehicle ......
-
People v. Barschall, 2007 NY Slip Op 52002(U) (N.Y. App. Term 10/5/2007)
...such posted sign, the traffic control device at the intersection was illegal and unenforceable (cf. 17 NYCRR 232.6 [a] [2]; People v Cooper, 112 Misc 2d 277 [1981]). We are of the view that even if the imprecise evidence had shown that the posting of a "Signal Ahead" sign was appropriate, t......