People v. Pollio

Rockville Centre Village Court

People v. Pollio

90 Misc. 2d 355, 394 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1977 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2062

DecidedMay 9, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 90 Misc. 2d 355 (People v. Pollio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Rockville Centre Village Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Pollio, 90 Misc. 2d 355, 394 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1977 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2062 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Albert A. Rubin, J.

The facts are not in dispute. On September 21, 1976 Police Officer John McKeon of the Rock-ville Centre Police Department issued a parking summons to defendant’s vehicle, alleging that it was "improperly parked” because there were no pavement markings indicating a parking stall and there were no meters indicating a parking stall.

The area in which the defendant parked her vehicle was on the east side of Morris Avenue, facing in a northerly direction. The space was not marked in any way whatsoever. Her car was parked in front of three marked parking stalls and just before the entrance to a driveway. However, defendant’s vehicle was not blocking the driveway. There was no meter for this space, nor was there any sign which prohibited parking. In fact, a sign which prohibited parking was north of the driveway with an arrow pointing north.

Here, in the absence of a sign prohibiting parking, the allegation of "improperly parked” must fail. There are many reasons why a car can be "improperly parked” but the ab[356]*356sence of pavement markings, or a meter being present is not one of the reasons.

The defendant is not guilty after trial.

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

Albert A. Rubin, J.

The facts are not in dispute. On September 21, 1976 Police Officer John McKeon of the Rock-ville Centre Police Department issued a parking summons to defendant’s vehicle, alleging that it was "improperly parked” because there were no pavement markings indicating a parking stall and there were no meters indicating a parking stall.

The area in which the defendant parked her vehicle was on the east side of Morris Avenue, facing in a northerly direction. The space was not marked in any way whatsoever. Her car was parked in front of three marked parking stalls and just before the entrance to a driveway. However, defendant’s vehicle was not blocking the driveway. There was no meter for this space, nor was there any sign which prohibited parking. In fact, a sign which prohibited parking was north of the driveway with an arrow pointing north.

Here, in the absence of a sign prohibiting parking, the allegation of "improperly parked” must fail. There are many reasons why a car can be "improperly parked” but the ab[356]*356sence of pavement markings, or a meter being present is not one of the reasons.

The defendant is not guilty after trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 Misc. 2d 355, 394 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1977 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pollio-nyjustctrockvil-1977.