People v. Goldsmith

CourtNew York Villiage Court
Citation442 N.Y.S.2d 760,110 Misc.2d 528
Decision Date28 August 1981
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Elliot R. GOLDSMITH, Defendant.

Page 760

442 N.Y.S.2d 760
110 Misc.2d 528
The PEOPLE of the State of New York
v.
Elliot R. GOLDSMITH, Defendant.
Village Court of Rockville Centre,
Nassau County.
Aug. 28, 1981.

Paul F. Belloff, Rockville Centre, for defendant, Goldsmith.

Herbert J. Krohn, Merrick, for the People.

DECISION

ALBERT A. RUBIN, Village Justice.

Several interesting questions are presented by this case. Can a driver of a vehicle be found guilty of speeding when the issuing patrolman places the wrong information on the summons? Can a driver be convicted when obviously speeding but the testifying officer positively identifies the wrong car? Can a defendant be convicted when there is no testimony about posted speed limits? Can the Court take judicial notice of the Village speed limit without being requested to by the Prosecuting Attorney? Does judicial notice encompass the posting of the speed limit restrictions?

Elliot Goldsmith and his wife, Sherry Goldsmith, a legal secretary, are the owners of two vehicles, one a beige 1976 Mercury Monarch and the other a 1969 Blue Dodge. The 1976 Mercury bears license plate number 988YDJ and the 1969 Dodge bears license plate number ERG 41.

The testimony produced at the trial indicates that both cars are registered in the

Page 761

name of Elliot R. Goldsmith. He carried one half of the registration for both the Mercury and the Dodge, and his wife, Sherry, carried the other half of the registration for both cars.

On May 18th, 1981, Elliot R. Goldsmith was stopped by a Village patrolman and charged with a violation of section 1180(d) doing 44 miles per hour in a 30 mile zone. The testimony produced at the trial both in the form of a radar reading and the expertise of the issuing officer could clearly have sustained the charge of speeding.

However, there are some absent ingredients essential to proving a prima facie case. The people failed to ask, nor did the patrolman testify as to the posted speed limit. The record is void of any reference to the 30 mile per hour posted speed limit, if in fact it was posted.

But, by way of dicta, a far more interesting situation is presented here. That is the matter of car identification and conforming the testimony to the facts set forth in the summons received by the defendant, Elliot R. Goldsmith.

We can only indulge in conjecture as to what happened at the time the summons was issued. In response to the usual requests for license, registration etc., Elliot R. Goldsmith produced a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • People v. Kreismann
    • United States
    • New York Justice Court
    • 24 Octubre 1994
    ...upon by the defendant, particularly Matter of Reape v. Adduci, 151 A.D.2d 290, 542 N.Y.S.2d 562 (1 Dept.1989), and People v. Goldsmith, 110 Misc.2d 528, 442 N.Y.S.2d 760 (Nassau Cty.1981), Page 254 both deal with post-trial applications. In Reape, supra the officer testified that the Defend......
1 cases
  • People v. Kreismann
    • United States
    • New York Justice Court
    • 24 Octubre 1994
    ...upon by the defendant, particularly Matter of Reape v. Adduci, 151 A.D.2d 290, 542 N.Y.S.2d 562 (1 Dept.1989), and People v. Goldsmith, 110 Misc.2d 528, 442 N.Y.S.2d 760 (Nassau Cty.1981), Page 254 both deal with post-trial applications. In Reape, supra the officer testified that the Defend......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT