People v. Dubinin (Vladimir)

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dubinin (Vladimir)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 6, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 50914(U)

StatusPublished

This text of People v. Dubinin (Vladimir) (People v. Dubinin (Vladimir)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Dubinin (Vladimir), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Vladimir Dubinin, Appellant.

Vladimir Dubinin, appellant pro se. Suffolk County Traffic Prosecutor's Office, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (Allen S. Mathers, J.H.O.), entered February 8, 2017. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, imposed a civil liability of $80 on defendant, as the owner of a motor vehicle which had failed to stop at a red light, as well as a $30 administrative fee.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

This action was commenced to impose a civil liability upon defendant as the owner of a motor vehicle which had been recorded by a camera failing to stop at a red light, in violation of Suffolk County Local Law § 20-2009 (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1111-b, 1111 [d]). At a nonjury trial, the People's evidence consisted of photographs of defendant's vehicle at the scene, a video, the vehicle's abstract, and a certificate by a technician certifying that she had reviewed the video and photographs and had determined that defendant's vehicle had not stopped at a red light. This evidence established, prima facie, defendant's liability (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111-b [d]). Moreover, defendant admitted that his "vehicle [had gone] through the red light, making the right turn very slowly with no danger to anybody without coming to a complete stop, before making a turn." In view of the foregoing, we find no merit to defendant's contention that the court was biased against him and had determined that defendant was liable prior to hearing the evidence. We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and similarly find them to be [*2]without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

ADAMS, P.J., GARGUILO and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 06, 2019

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

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Vladimir Dubinin, Appellant.

Vladimir Dubinin, appellant pro se. Suffolk County Traffic Prosecutor's Office, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (Allen S. Mathers, J.H.O.), entered February 8, 2017. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, imposed a civil liability of $80 on defendant, as the owner of a motor vehicle which had failed to stop at a red light, as well as a $30 administrative fee.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

This action was commenced to impose a civil liability upon defendant as the owner of a motor vehicle which had been recorded by a camera failing to stop at a red light, in violation of Suffolk County Local Law § 20-2009 (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1111-b, 1111 [d]). At a nonjury trial, the People's evidence consisted of photographs of defendant's vehicle at the scene, a video, the vehicle's abstract, and a certificate by a technician certifying that she had reviewed the video and photographs and had determined that defendant's vehicle had not stopped at a red light. This evidence established, prima facie, defendant's liability (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111-b [d]). Moreover, defendant admitted that his "vehicle [had gone] through the red light, making the right turn very slowly with no danger to anybody without coming to a complete stop, before making a turn." In view of the foregoing, we find no merit to defendant's contention that the court was biased against him and had determined that defendant was liable prior to hearing the evidence. We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and similarly find them to be [*2]without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

ADAMS, P.J., GARGUILO and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 06, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People v. Dubinin (Vladimir), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dubinin-vladimir-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack