People v. Goldsmith

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

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 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 license and apparently a registration card for a 1976 Mercury with the license plate number 988YDJ. The patrolman issued the summons to Mr. Goldsmith for a violation of section 1180d, and, in describing the vehicle, he listed the data from the registration card. Apparently no attempt was made to examine the car itself nor the license plate on the car.

Mrs. Goldsmith testified that she was driving the Mercury Monarch on the day and time in question and it was at her place of business in Mineola at the time this summons was issued. It would appear that the evidence is clear that while the defendant was speeding, he was not driving a 1976 Mercury, but, as he testified to, he was driving the 1969 Dodge, which was the car in violation.

The identity of the defendant was established by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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