People v. Rosenberg

New York County Courts

People v. Rosenberg

24 Misc. 2d 116, 203 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2653

DecidedJuly 27, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 24 Misc. 2d 116 (People v. Rosenberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York County Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Rosenberg, 24 Misc. 2d 116, 203 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2653 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

William E. J. Connor, J.

The defendant was convicted [June 28, 1960] in the City Court of the City of Hudson, New York, after a trial before the court, of violating subdivision 1 of section 1113 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York and was fined $5. The prosecution was represented by the police officer himself, and the defendant was represented by his attorney.

Section 1113 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, as pertinent to this case, reads as follows: “1. Flashing red (stop signal). When a red lens is illuminated with rapid intermittent flashes, vehicular traffic facing such signal shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk at an intersection or at a limit line when marked, or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and the right to proceed shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a stop sign.” This section is very poorly stated and is very difficult to understand, but as I interpret it, if there is no intersection and there is no limit line, then the passing of a flash signal is not prohibited. Here the testimony was that there was no intersection, and the testimony taken at the trial is silent as to whether or not there was a limit line. This being the fact, the conviction is not substantiated by any proof of the violation of the section and the conviction must be reversed.

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

William E. J. Connor, J.

The defendant was convicted [June 28, 1960] in the City Court of the City of Hudson, New York, after a trial before the court, of violating subdivision 1 of section 1113 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York and was fined $5. The prosecution was represented by the police officer himself, and the defendant was represented by his attorney.

Section 1113 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, as pertinent to this case, reads as follows: “1. Flashing red (stop signal). When a red lens is illuminated with rapid intermittent flashes, vehicular traffic facing such signal shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk at an intersection or at a limit line when marked, or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and the right to proceed shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a stop sign.” This section is very poorly stated and is very difficult to understand, but as I interpret it, if there is no intersection and there is no limit line, then the passing of a flash signal is not prohibited. Here the testimony was that there was no intersection, and the testimony taken at the trial is silent as to whether or not there was a limit line. This being the fact, the conviction is not substantiated by any proof of the violation of the section and the conviction must be reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Misc. 2d 116, 203 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rosenberg-nycountyct-1960.