People v. Fung

• Decision Date: 06 February 2014
• Citation: 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 24043,984 N.Y.S.2d 796,43 Misc.3d 43
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Nim T. FUNG, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term

43 Misc.3d 43
984 N.Y.S.2d 796
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 24043

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Nim T. FUNG, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
Second Dept., 9 and 10 Judicial Dist.

Feb. 6, 2014.

[984 N.Y.S.2d 797]

Janet DiFiore, District Attorney (Laurie Sapakoff, Steven Bender and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.

McMillan Constabile Maker & Perone, LLP, Larchmont (Stewart A. McMillan of counsel), for appellant.

PRESENT: TOLBERT, J.P., NICOLAI and IANNACCI, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Irvington, Westchester County (Desmond C.B. Lyons, J.), rendered May 16, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of leaving the scene of an incident without reporting.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

After a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of leaving the scene of an incident without reporting, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600(2)(a), which provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]ny person operating a motor vehicle who, knowing or having cause to know that personal injury has been caused to another person, due to an incident involving the motor vehicle operated by such person, shall, before leaving the place where the said personal injury occurred, stop [and] exhibit his or her license and insurance identification card for such vehicle ...” In this case, a motorcyclist, proceeding northbound on the Saw Mill River Parkway in Westchester County, lost control of his vehicle, and collided with a stanchion. As a result, he was catapulted into the air and landed on the pavement of the southbound Saw Mill River Parkway. Shortly thereafter, the motorcyclist's body was struck and run over by defendant's vehicle, and then by a second, unidentified motorist. Both drivers stopped but left without exhibiting their licenses or insurance identification cards. The driver of the second vehicle was never apprehended.

The motorcyclist died as a result of his injuries. After performing an autopsy, the Acting Chief Westchester County Medical Examiner determined that the motorcyclist had died as a result of blunt force trauma, but was unable to determine whether the death had occurred when the motorcyclist had collided with the stanchion, when he had landed on the pavement, when he had been struck by defendant, when he had been struck by the unidentified second motorist, or by a combination thereof. On appeal, defendant asserts, among other things, that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict of guilt was against the weight of the evidence, because the People failed to establish that the motorcyclist was alive when he was struck by defendant's vehicle, which, defendant claims, is a necessary element of the offense.

[984 N.Y.S.2d 798]

In determining whether a defendant's guilt is supported by legally sufficient evidence, the facts must be viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution ( People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 [1983] ). A verdict is legally sufficient where there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational trier of fact could have determined that the elements of the offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, proof is legally sufficient when, “as a matter of law,” a trier of fact “could logically conclude that the People sustained its burden of proof” ( People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). Here, there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational trier of fact could have determined that defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Contrary to defendant's contention, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600(2)(a) does not require that the People establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the injured person was alive before contact with the vehicle operated by the defendant ( see CJI2d [N.Y.], Leaving Scene Of An Incident Without Reporting [B Misdemeanor/A Misdemeanor ], Vehicle & Traffic Law § 600 [2]; cf. Barton v. State, 936 N.E.2d 842 [Ind.App.2010]; State v. Wagner, 97 Wash.App. 344, 984 P.2d 425 [1999] [prosecution conceded that body in the road was dead prior to being struck by the defendant's vehicle]; Wash. Rev. Code § 46.52.020[1] ).

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600(2)(a) requires that the People prove that the defendant “at least had cause to know that he had hit a person” ( People v. Lewis, 162 A.D.2d 760, 764, 557 N.Y.S.2d 674 [1990] ). We find that the term “cause to know” means that a driver is criminally liable if he or she leaves the scene of an accident and actually knew of the injury or should have reasonably anticipated that, under the circumstances, the accident would have resulted in an injury ( see People v. Hakala,...