People v. Lauber
| Decision Date | 07 July 1994 |
| Citation | 617 N.Y.S.2d 419,162 Misc.2d 19 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rita LAUBER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Rita Lauber, appellant pro se.
Before DiPAOLA, P.J., and STARK and INGRASSIA, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Cortlandt, Westchester County (Daniel A. McCarthy, J.), rendered May 14, 1993, which convicted defendant of failure to dim her vehicle's headlamps, and imposed a fine.
Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed upon the law, fine, if paid, remitted and information dismissed.
A State Trooper testified at the trial that on February 7, 1993, he was in a marked patrol car positioned next to Route 9 at the county line for Westchester and Putnam. His lights were off and he was in a "concealed" position having a meal. He then pulled out onto the road, and while driving southbound behind defendant, noticed that "with more than several northbound vehicles her high beams would come on and off several times." She was "flipping" her high beams within 200 feet of the northbound vehicles and the high beams were "on." Upon stopping her, he advised her that it was not a good idea to "flip" her lights on and off to alert other people that a policeman was ahead, in case he was looking for something of a criminal nature. She replied, "I only did it three times."
Defendant testified that as she was driving southbound and approaching the trooper's parked location, two cars flipped their lights at her. She passed the stationary patrol car and "flicked" her lights three times. By the time that the trooper had started his car and gotten onto the road, she "would have" finished her "flicking."
Defendant went on to state that it was a Sunday and about 6:50 (P.M.). Traffic was not very heavy and she was not "interfering" with any driver or anybody. Upon being asked by the court why she was "flicking," she answered, "It may not have been smart, I admit, but when the cars flicked at me, I looked and saw the Officer's car, and I just flicked for other cars to know." Defendant also testified that when she spoke to the trooper on a later date, he said he had given her the ticket "because [she] was alerting other drivers--having nothing to do with her lights."
In our opinion, the conviction must be set aside. The subject provision states in pertinent part that a car's headlamps "... whenever a vehicle approaching from ahead is within five hundred feet ... shall be operated so that dazzling light does not interfere with the driver...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Costa
... ... has indicated: "The mere flashing of lights, alone, does ... not constitute a violation of the statute (see People v ... Meola, 7 N.Y.2d 391, 397 [1960]; People v ... Hines, 155 A.D.2d 722, 724 [1989], lv denied 76 ... N.Y.2d 736 [1990]; People v. Lauber, 162 Misc.2d 19, ... 20 [1994])." (People v. Garlock, 29 Misc.2d ... 1223[A], 2010 NY Slip Op. 51968[U] *5) ... Since ... this courts's ruling in Guinan, the Court of ... Appeals has dealt with the issue of a traffic stop based on a ... mistake ... ...
-
People v. Jones, 10080093
...a violation of the statute (see People v. Meola, 7 NY2d 391, 397; People v. Hines, 155 AD2d 722, 724, lv. denied 76 NY2d 736; People v. Lauber, 162 Misc 2d 19, 20)." 3 The court determined that there was no violation of V.T.L. 375(3) prohibiting flashing of headlights, since there was no ev......
-
Sarber v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, No. A12–0110.
...law did not prohibit a driver from briefly flashing her high beams several times at oncoming traffic. People v. Lauber, 162 Misc.2d 19, 617 N.Y.S.2d 419, 419–20 (N.Y.App. Term 1994). The statute required drivers to operate their headlights “so that dazzling light does not interfere with the......
-
People Of The State Of N.Y. v. Garlock
...(see People v. Meola, 7 NY2d 391, 397 [1960]; People v. Hines, 155 AD2d 722, 724 [1989], lv denied 76 NY2d 736 [1990]; People v. Lauber, 162 Misc 2d 19, 20 [1994]). Our own Fourth Department, on a similar fact pattern, in 2009, reversed a conviction in the Steuben County Court (See People v......