Henig v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Henig v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles

122 A.D.2d 250, 505 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59594

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 28, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 122 A.D.2d 250 (Henig v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Henig v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles, 122 A.D.2d 250, 505 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59594 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Department of Motor Vehicles, dated June 19, 1985, which sustained a finding of an Administrative Law Judge that the petitioner had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (d).

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The respondent sustained its burden of proving that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (d). The arresting officer sufficiently established the accuracy of the radar device by using two tuning forks and an internal calibration test before and after stopping the petitioner (see, Matter of Graf v Foschio, 102 AD2d 891). Furthermore, since the officer testified that his visual estimates had been proven to be within 3 to 5 miles per hour of actual vehicle speeds, his estimate of the vehicle’s speed in the case at bar would have been sufficient to confirm even an untested radar reading (see, People v Heyser, 2 NY2d 390, 393). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Department of Motor Vehicles, dated June 19, 1985, which sustained a finding of an Administrative Law Judge that the petitioner had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (d).

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The respondent sustained its burden of proving that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (d). The arresting officer sufficiently established the accuracy of the radar device by using two tuning forks and an internal calibration test before and after stopping the petitioner (see, Matter of Graf v Foschio, 102 AD2d 891). Furthermore, since the officer testified that his visual estimates had been proven to be within 3 to 5 miles per hour of actual vehicle speeds, his estimate of the vehicle’s speed in the case at bar would have been sufficient to confirm even an untested radar reading (see, People v Heyser, 2 NY2d 390, 393). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 250, 505 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henig-v-state-of-new-york-department-of-motor-vehicles-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack