People v. Zapas

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zapas

25 Misc. 3d 91

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 13, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 25 Misc. 3d 91 (People v. Zapas) 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. Zapas, 25 Misc. 3d 91 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the judgment convicting defendant of failing to stop at a stop sign is affirmed; and it is further ordered that the judgments convicting defendant of improper use of an in-transit permit, driving without front or rear license plates and failing to display an inspection sticker are reversed, on the law, the sentences imposed thereunder are vacated, and the accusatory instruments charging these offenses are dismissed.

The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), was legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt of failing to stop at a stop sign (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 [a]). Moreover, giving much deference to the trial court’s verdict, particularly with respect to its credibility determinations (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; see also People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]), even as we conduct our own review of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we find that the verdict of guilt of failing to stop at a stop sign was not against the weight of the evidence. Accordingly, said judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was also convicted of improper use of an in-transit permit (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401-a), driving without front or rear license plates (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 402 [1]) and failing to display an inspection sticker (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 306 [b]). We find that defendant’s vehicle bore a temporary New Jersey registration (see NJ Stat Ann § 39:3-4b), not an in-transit permit (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401-a), as it is undisputed that defendant’s vehicle bore “a State of New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles temporary nonresident sticker.” Under the circumstances, defendant was not subject to the requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 402 (1) (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 252) or Vehicle and Traffic Law § 306 (b) (see 15 NYCRR 79.2 [d] [8]).

Accordingly, the judgments of conviction for improper use of an in-transit permit, driving without front or rear license plates and failing to display an inspection sticker are re[93]*93versed, and the accusatory instruments charging these offenses are dismissed.

Molía, J.E, Nicolai and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the judgment convicting defendant of failing to stop at a stop sign is affirmed; and it is further ordered that the judgments convicting defendant of improper use of an in-transit permit, driving without front or rear license plates and failing to display an inspection sticker are reversed, on the law, the sentences imposed thereunder are vacated, and the accusatory instruments charging these offenses are dismissed.

The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), was legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt of failing to stop at a stop sign (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 [a]). Moreover, giving much deference to the trial court’s verdict, particularly with respect to its credibility determinations (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; see also People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]), even as we conduct our own review of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we find that the verdict of guilt of failing to stop at a stop sign was not against the weight of the evidence. Accordingly, said judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was also convicted of improper use of an in-transit permit (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401-a), driving without front or rear license plates (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 402 [1]) and failing to display an inspection sticker (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 306 [b]). We find that defendant’s vehicle bore a temporary New Jersey registration (see NJ Stat Ann § 39:3-4b), not an in-transit permit (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401-a), as it is undisputed that defendant’s vehicle bore “a State of New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles temporary nonresident sticker.” Under the circumstances, defendant was not subject to the requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 402 (1) (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 252) or Vehicle and Traffic Law § 306 (b) (see 15 NYCRR 79.2 [d] [8]).

Accordingly, the judgments of conviction for improper use of an in-transit permit, driving without front or rear license plates and failing to display an inspection sticker are re[93]*93versed, and the accusatory instruments charging these offenses are dismissed.

Molía, J.E, Nicolai and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 Misc. 3d 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zapas-nyappterm-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack