People v. Jeck-Tisch, JECK-TISC

Decision Date25 November 1986
Docket NumberJECK-TISC,D
Citation133 Misc.2d 1090,509 N.Y.S.2d 463
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Bonnieefendant.
CourtNew York City Court

Sirlin, Sirlin & Noletti, Mamaroneck, for Jeck-Tisch.

JAMES B. REAP, Judge.

PROCEDURE: This is a motion returnable on November 25th, 1986, to dismiss a simplified traffic information as amplified by a supporting deposition. The defendant admits timely service of the deposition but alleges that it is defective.

ACTION: The motion is denied and the case is restored to the calendar for a trial promptly at 11:15 A.M. on Friday, December 12, 1986.

REASON: At the outset, because we are a City Court of record, the Uniform Justice Court Act has no applicability whatsoever to our proceedings and so defendant's reference to the UJCA is inapposite.

We have carefully reviewed the decision in People v. Cohen, 131 Misc.2d 898, 899, 502 N.Y.S.2d 123 (Yonkers City Court 1986), which deals in the first instance with that Court's reasoning for denying discovery, inspection, and a demand for a bill of particulars in a case involving only a simple traffic infraction as distinguished from a crime.

Where, as here, the supporting deposition twice alleges that the officer estimated defendant's speed first at 40 miles per hour in a posted 30 mile-per-hour zone and then again at 50-55 miles per hour in said zone and the uniform traffic ticket alleges a violation of Section 1180-a of the V and T Law in that the defendant was traveling at a stated date, time, and place at the rate of 50 miles per hour in a 30 zone, that is entirely sufficient as a matter of law.

Moreover, the deposition is also clear in that it makes no mention of radar or mechanical devices. That obviously makes the case one based on visual observation and the ability of the police officer to estimate speed. The opinion evidence of police officers uncorroborated by mechanical devices is sufficient to sustain a speeding conviction. See People v. Olsen, 22 N.Y.2d 230, 292 N.Y.S.2d 420, 239 N.E.2d 354 (1968). For a recitation of facts showing the New York State Court of Appeals approval of very paltry evidence adduced to qualify a police officer, read People v. Dusing, 5 N.Y.2d 126, 181 N.Y.S.2d 493, 155 N.E.2d 393 (1959). See also People v. Higley, 55 Misc.2d 460 at page 461, 285 N.Y.S.2d 467 (1967).

"Q. How long have you been a motorcycle policeman?

A. About two years.

Q. You have made arrests for speeding?

A. Many times.

Q. As a result of your experience as a policeman, also your experience in driving, are you able to estimate the speed of moving vehicles?

A. Yes."

To the extent that Cohen may be construed as authority for the contrary view, we decline to follow it because it is oxymoronic in that on the one hand it denies a demand for a bill of particulars and on the other hand it grants a motion to dismiss for failure to state whether the officer's estimate of the defendant's speed was based on personal observation or on mechanical means. The two positions are entirely inconsistent in fact and logic, since a dismissal for the reasons stated is tantamount to granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state the same facts in a bill of particulars, which motion was denied.

The means which an officer uses to visually estimate a defendant's speed is a matter to be proven at trial, and the documents provided in this case are sufficient to enable the defendant to prepare a defense. Taken together they provide a concise and plain statement of the offense, and so we hold that Sections 100.25, 100.35, and 100.40(2) of the CPL have all been complied with, since nowhere does the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • People v. Abajian
    • United States
    • New York Justice Court
    • January 5, 1989
    ...provided always that the governing statute of limitations is not exceeded pursuant to CPL 30.10(4)(b)." People v. Jeck-Tisch, 133 Misc.2d 1090, 1092, 509 N.Y.S.2d 463 (Wh.Plains City Ct.1986). By analogy to Fitzpatrick v. Cook, 58 A.D.2d 642, 396 N.Y.S.2d 51 (2d Dept.1977), the simplified t......
  • People v. Correia
    • United States
    • New York Villiage Court
    • July 21, 1988
    ...v. Olsen, 22 N.Y.2d 230, 231, 292 N.Y.S.2d 420; Mtr. of Graf v. Foschio, 102 A.D.2d 891, 892, 477 N.Y.S.2d 190; People v. Jeck-Tisch, 133 Misc.2d 1090, 1091, 509 N.Y.S.2d 463) alone can suffice to produce and sustain a Doppler radar devices have been judicially accepted as probative evidenc......
  • People v. Aucello
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • March 27, 1990
    ...to the People re-prosecuting the same charge using the same uniform traffic ticket and supporting deposition. In People v. Jeck-Tisch, 133 Misc.2d 1090, 509 N.Y.S.2d 463, subsequent judgment of conviction affd. without opn., NYLJ, Aug. 25, 1988 [App.Term, 9th & 10th Jud.Dists.], the same Ci......
  • People v. Gerloff
    • United States
    • New York Justice Court
    • November 8, 1989
    ...New York Vehicle and Traffic Law, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co., 1984, § 17.3, page 131.2 See, for example, People v. Jeck-Tisch, 133 Misc.2d 1090, 509 N.Y.S.2d 463; and People v. Hartman, 123 Misc.2d 553, 473 N.Y.S.2d 935, both White Plains City Court; see also People v. Bock, Broome ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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