the rear quarter panel of the passenger side of her vehicle.
Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff argues he is entitled to summary judgment against
Defendant on the issue of liability.
In opposition, Defendant argues numerous issues of fact exist which preclude granting
Plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of liability. Defendant claims Plaintiff violated VTL1180,
which provides the New York City speed limit is 25 miles per hour. As such, Defendant argues
1 of 4
[* 1]
INDEX NO. 705377/2019"
and wantonly enter the intersection without keeping a proper lookout or
employing a reasonable speed (see, Nuziale v Paper Transport of Green Bay Incorporated, 39 AD3d
833,835 NYS2d 316 [2007]), there is no requirement that said motorist reduce his or her speed at every
intersection as a reduction in speed is required only where warranted by prevailing conditions (see, VTL
§1180(a) (e); Wallace v Kuhn, 23 AD3d 1042, 804 NYS2d 187 [2005]; Mosch v Hansen, 295 AD2d
717, 744 NYS2d 222 [2002]; Barile v Carroll"
>
Defendant James J. Stephen (Stephen) makes motion to dismiss his pending charges of Speeding VTL1180 and two counts of Driving While Intoxicated VTL 1192(2) and 1192(3) pursuant to C.P.L. 170.40 in the Interests of Justice. On April 7, 2016 at 2:10 a.m. Stephen was stopped for speeding (64 in a 45 m.p.h.) on South Transit Road which is a public highway in the Town of Lockport, New York. He admitted drinking at least three (3) beers and was then tested by the arresting officer with the standard sobriety"
on a public highway if he or she observes its driver
commits a vehicle/traffic offense (People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413, 420 [1975]). Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (a) provides: "No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing." A violation of VTL1180 occurs when a motorist drives 10 or more miles per hour over the speed limit (see People v Olsen, 22 NY2d 230"
allegedly made a left turn and struck the
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant has violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (a),
VTL §1146, VTL §1151(a), VTL §1163(a) and VTL §1180(a) since the vehicle allegedly struck
the Plaintiff while he was a pedestrian with the right of way. In opposition, the Defendant argues
that the motion should be denied as there are triable issues of fact that should prevent this Court
from granting summary judgment at this time. Also, the Defendant argues"
was forfeited.[FN1]Defendant cites CPL �100.25(2) in arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction because the defendant was never served with a supporting deposition. The People oppose the motion.
BACKGROUND
On March 22, 2008, defendant was issued three tickets for the following: Speeding, in violation of VTL�1180-a (an infraction); Driving Without a License, in violation of VTL�509 [*2](an infraction); and Aggravated Unlicensed"
violations of VTL
§1180-b; to grant damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 3) to grant pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest as provided by law; and 4) to grant reasonable attorneys' fees. Respondent,
the City of New York ("Respondent/City) filed opposition and petitioner filed a reply.
This case stems from speed camera tickets issued to the petitioner between January 12,
2022, and April 1, 2022. The New York City Department of Transportation ("DOT") issued the
Notices of Liabilities"
the circumstances, with
an emergency vehicle (ambulance) flashing its lights at the intersection, Plaintiff’s vehicle
stopped and waited: it was the speeding of both Defendant under the circumstances (“No
person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the
conditions and having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and traffic upon and
condition of the highway” VTL1180 (a) and following too closely (“The driver of a motor
vehicle shall not follow another"
, in violation of VTL section 1110; Driving in Excess of Maximum Speed Limits, in violation of VTL1180(D)(1), and Excessive Speed, in violation of VTL section 1180(A). The matters have been pending in the same part on the same adjourn dates since October 18, 2022. The matters are currently adjourned to July 15, 2024: indictment 70495-22 for additional discovery and indictment 75174-22 for trial. Now, almost two years later and on the eve of the trial on indictment 75174-22, the People move, by motion"
information already set out in the uniform traffic information. In addition, the section designated "additional information" merely restates the language of the statute, i.e. VTL1180(a). Said language does not indicate how the officer knew the defendant was traveling at an improper speed. Did the vehicle leave the road? Was there an accident? Did the vehicle leave the road because of weather conditions? Did the vehicle leave the road because of the severity of the curve in the road? The reader is left"
