The People of the State of New York v. Ruixin Cao, Defendant. (2026)

Appellant, Ruixin Cao, appearing pro se, appeals from a judgment of the Cayuga Heights Village Court (Bergin, J.), entered December 9, 2025, convicting him after a non-jury trial of Speed in Zone 48/30 in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(d) and imposing a fine and surcharge. On December 26, 2025, defendant filed a Notice of Appeal. On January 15, 2026, defendant filed an Affidavit of Errors. On February 20, 2026, the People filed opposition papers. By letter dated February 24, 2026, this Court denied defendant's request for a free transcript, deemed the record sufficient for appellate review, and afforded defendant an opportunity to reply. On March 31, 2026, defendant filed reply papers. This Court has reviewed all submissions of the parties together with the lengthy audio recordings of the bench trial conducted on September 23, 2025 and October 28, 2025. Upon review of the entire record, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

As an initial matter, many of defendant's appellate contentions were not preserved by contemporaneous objection and therefore are not properly before this Court for appellate review. CPL § 470.05(2). In any event, to the extent this Court exercises its interest-of-justice jurisdiction to review unpreserved claims, such claims are likewise rejected on the merits.

Defendant's contention that he was entitled to a free transcript or "poor person relief" is without merit. Traffic infractions are civil in nature and do not carry a right to assigned counsel or publicly funded transcripts. People v Letterio, 16 NY2d 307, 312 (1965). Moreover, the audio recording of the proceedings, together with the affidavit of errors and local court return, provided an adequate record for meaningful appellate review.

Defendant's claim that the trial court erred by requiring him to proceed under oath is likewise without merit. A pro se litigant who elects to offer factual assertions and testimony during proceedings may properly be sworn before doing so, and defendant cites no authority establishing otherwise.

Defendant's claims concerning interpreter deficiencies are unsupported by the record. The audio recording reflects that defendant capably, articulately, and fluently participated throughout the proceedings, including during legal argument and cross-examination. Although interpretive assistance was made available, the record discloses no material mistranslation, communication failure, or resulting prejudice that impaired defendant's ability to understand the proceedings or meaningfully present his defense.

To the extent defendant challenges the trial court's imposition of reasonable limitations on cross-examination, such determinations rest squarely within the sound discretion of the trial court and do not provide a basis for reversal absent an abuse of discretion, People v Broom, 200 AD2d 515, 516 (1st Dept. 1994). No such abuse appears here.

Defendant's contention that the trial court improperly excluded testimony from a proposed defense witness regarding defendant's alleged driving habits is likewise without merit, as the proposed testimony constituted improper character evidence, lacked relevance to the charged offense, or was otherwise subject to exclusion within the trial court's sound discretion. People v Mancini, 213 AD2d 1038 (4th Dept. 1995).

At trial, the People presented legally sufficient evidence establishing that the defendant committed the charged traffic infraction. Officer Raven Miller testified credibly that defendant was traveling 48 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone. Officer Miller further testified that she determined defendant's speed through both trained visual estimation and radar detection in accordance with her training and experience. Either method independently constituted competent evidence sufficient to support the verdict.

Defendant's arguments concerning alleged late disclosure of radar-related materials similarly do not warrant reversal. Defendant failed to demonstrate that the timing of any disclosure prejudiced a substantial right or materially impaired his ability to defend against the charge. In any event, Officer Miller's visual estimation testimony independently supported the conviction irrespective of radar corroboration.

The trial court, as finder of fact, was entitled to credit Officer Miller's testimony, and such credibility determinations are entitled to substantial deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record. People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 (1987). Furthermore, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence. People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 (2007).

Defendant's remaining claims—including objections concerning radar log foundation, witness responsiveness, alleged inconsistencies in testimony, and trial management—are either unpreserved, unsupported by the record, or without legal merit. Even assuming arguendo that any procedural irregularity occurred, defendant has failed to demonstrate prejudice affecting a substantial right or undermining confidence in the verdict.

Finally, defendant contends that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors deprived him of a fair trial. The Court rejects that contention. As none of defendant's individual claims have merit, there is no cumulative error warranting reversal. People v. Buanno, 296 AD2d 600, 602 (3rd Dept. 2002).

The Court has considered defendant's remaining arguments and finds them to be without merit.

Accordingly, it is hereby, ORDERED, that the judgment of conviction of the Cayuga Heights Village Court is AFFIRMED.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. A notice of appeal, if applicable, must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of this decision.

Dated: April 14, 2026

Ithaca, New York

Hon. Scott A. Miller

Tompkins County Court Judge

Scott A. Miller, J.