People v. Tsys

• Decision Date: 15 December 2010
• Docket Number: No. 2009–1033 D CR.,2009–1033 D CR.
• Citation: 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 52213,29 Misc.3d 143,958 N.Y.S.2d 648
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Vasily A. TSYS, Appellant.

29 Misc.3d 143
958 N.Y.S.2d 648
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 52213

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Vasily A. TSYS, Appellant.

No. 2009–1033 D CR.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York,
9th and 10th Judicial Districts.

Dec. 15, 2010.

Present: NICOLAI, P.J., MOLIA and LaCAVA, JJ.

Appeal by defendant from judgments of the Justice Court of the Town of Rhinebeck, Dutchess County (John B. Kane, Jr., J.), rendered January 15, 2009. The judgments convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of passing another vehicle in a nopassing zone and speeding, and imposed sentences.

ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

The People charged defendant, in simplified traffic informations, with passing another vehicle in a no-passing zone (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1126[a] ) and speeding (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180[b] ). After a nonjury trial, the Justice Court convicted defendant of both offenses. Defendant appeals, challenging, among other matters, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instruments, the sufficiency of the trial proof to establish his guilt, and the propriety of the fines imposed. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgments of conviction.

We find that the simplified traffic informations on their face were legally sufficient since they conformed to the requirements prescribed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles ( seeCPL 100.25, 100.40; People v. Key, 45 N.Y.2d 111 [1978] ). Furthermore, the supporting depositions provided “reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the ... offenses charged” (CPL 100.25[2] ) and “serve[d] the fundamental purposes of providing the accused notice sufficient to prepare a defense' and in a form sufficiently detailed' to prevent a subsequent retrial for the same offense [s]” (People v. Prevete, 10 Misc.3d 78, 79–80 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005], quoting People v. Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 354, 360 [2000] ). Consequently, defendant's challenges to the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instruments lack merit.

As for the trial proof, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621 [1983] ), the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the convictions. The arresting officer, a state trooper, testified that he is trained to estimate the speed of a moving vehicle to within five miles per hour of its actual speed and that he observed defendant traveling at 80 miles per hour in a 55 miles per hour speed zone as defendant was passing...