People v Berger (Charles) part 2.

Matisyahu Wolfberg

Case Conclusion Date:January 1, 2012

Practice Area:Speeding / Traffic Ticket

Outcome:the judgment of conviction is reversed and the matter remanded to the court below for a new trial

Description:The foregoing evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), was legally insufficient to establish the convictions of driving at an unreasonable and imprudent speed and speeding beyond a reasonable doubt. "Radar and speedometer readings are generally admissible and may be sufficient in themselves if there be reasonable proof of their accuracy" (People v Dusing, 5 NY2d 126, 128 [1959]). "[E]vidence of the reading of an untested speedometer without more [is] insufficient to sustain a conviction for speeding" (People v Heyser, 2 NY2d 390, 393 [1957]). In the absence of any testimony by the officer of his visual estimate of the speed of defendant's vehicle or of the traffic or road conditions at that time, the evidence was insufficient to prove that defendant was driving at an unreasonable or imprudent speed, or speeding. Accordingly, the judgments convicting defendant of these charges are reversed and these accusatory instruments are dismissed. However, the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d at 621), was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of failing to stop at a stop sign. Accordingly, the judgment convicting defendant of failing to stop at a stop sign is affirmed. In view of the foregoing, we pass on no other issue regarding the charges of driving at an unreasonable and imprudent speed and of speeding. Tanenbaum, J.P., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur. Decision Date: May 20, 2011