People v. Pender
| Decision Date | 12 March 1979 |
| Citation | 420 N.Y.S.2d 62,100 Misc.2d 846 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Kevin P. PENDER, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Town Court |
Lawrence T. Kurlander, Dist. Atty., for the People of the State of New York; Karen L. Morris, Asst. Dist. Atty., Rochester, of counsel.
Edward J. Nowak, Public Defender for Monroe County for defendant; Ian Mackler, Asst. Public Defender, of counsel.
DECISION
The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle without insurance, a misdemeanor in violation of Section 319 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
Upon stopping the defendant, Brighton Police Department Officer Kirstein called over his radio to the dispatcher, the license plate number on the vehicle. The dispatcher ran a teletype and received a message that the owner of the vehicle was the defendant. The defendant failed to produce FS-20, proof of insurance card, and was charged accordingly.
At the time of the trial, the People introduced the report of the teletype message as the basis of ownership for the automobile. The defendant did not produce the registration, but the officer was satisfied that the teletype message was sufficient to show ownership. No admission or statement was made by defendant as to the ownership or failure to have insurance.
The statute requires that the People prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict the defendant. First, they must show that the automobile was operating upon a public highway. Second, a showing must be made that there was no insurance covering the automobile, and third, that either the operator was the owner or if not the owner, he had actual knowledge of the lack of insurance.
There is no question that the automobile was being driven on a public highway. As to the second point, failure to present an FS-20, being an insurance identification card, this raises a presumption of lack of insurance (Vehicle and Traffic Law, Section 319, subdivision 3). This presumption, however, goes only to the element of lack of insurance and not to the knowledge upon the part of the non-owner operator. (People v. Simmons, 90 Misc.2d 143, 394 N.Y.S.2d 358). The People must therefore prove knowledge or ownership as the third element.
There is no proof of knowledge, as no admission exists. The People must therefore prove ownership beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the absence of an actual registration being presented, the People rely on an uncertified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Arakaki
...the elemental fact that Defendant's automobile was uninsured was established beyond a reasonable doubt. See People v. Pender, 100 Misc.2d 846, 420 N.Y.S.2d 62 (1979). III. Regarding the DUI conviction, the State concedes that in light of the recent cases of State v. Souza, 6 Haw.App. 554, 7......
-
People v. Weinert
...Law § 319[1]; People v. Astoria Construction, Decided October 25, 1993 [App. Term 2d & 11th Jud. Dists.]; see also, People v. Pender, 100 Misc.2d 846, 420 N.Y.S.2d 62; People v. Simmons, 90 Misc.2d 143, 394 N.Y.S.2d 358). Thus, the People failed to sustain their burden of proof for this Def......
-
People v. Burn
...the People to prove actual knowledge on the part of the driver concerning whether the vehicle was insured or not, cf. People v. Pender, 100 Misc.2d 846, 420 N.Y.S.2d 62 (Town Ct., Brighton, 1979), People v. Chin, 96 Misc.2d 627, 409 N.Y.S.2d 500 (Village Ct., Rockville Centre, The Statute i......
-
People v. Scherbner
...and knowledge [that the vehicle is uninsured] is upon the People." (People v Simmons, 90 Misc 2d 143, 144 [1977]; accord People v Pender, 100 Misc 2d 846 [1979].) As explained in Rose, New York Vehicle and Traffic Law (§ 19:4 at 205): "The Legislature has not required that a driver inquire ......