The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert Parker, Appellant. (2025)

ORDERED that the judgment convicting defendant of failing to signal is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment convicting defendant of operating a motor vehicle without a front license plate is reversed, on the facts, the accusatory instrument charging that offense is dismissed, and the fine, if paid, is remitted.

Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of failing to signal (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [a]) and operating a motor vehicle without a front license plate (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 402 [1] [a]). On appeal, defendant, pro se, contends that the judgments should be reversed as there was insufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendant's legal sufficiency contentions are unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to raise objections on these grounds at trial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]), and we decline to review the contentions in the interest of justice. To the extent that defendant raises contentions with respect to the weight of the evidence, for which there is no preservation requirement, we necessarily must determine whether all of the elements of the offenses charged were proven beyond a reasonable doubt at the nonjury trial (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]; People v Thiel, 134 AD3d 1237 [2015]).

At trial, a police officer testified that he observed that defendant did not signal when he pulled his parked vehicle away from the curb and made a U-turn, and that the vehicle defendant was driving only had a rear license plate. The officer further testified that defendant had a New York State driver's license and that the vehicle had a valid North Carolina registration. The documentary evidence also showed that the vehicle had a North Carolina license plate.

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 (a) provides that no "person shall so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal." The foregoing testimony by the police officer clearly established that defendant turned his vehicle without giving an appropriate signal (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1163 [a], [d]; 1164). Moreover, we note that the City Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it denied defendant's request to have the affidavit of his passenger admitted into evidence in support of his defense to the failing to signal charge. Such an affidavit was inadmissible as it "was being offered for the truth of the matters asserted therein, it was hearsay and properly excluded since defendant failed to demonstrate any basis for its admissibility" (People v Mendelson, 56 Misc 3d 136[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51010[U], *1-2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2019]). Consequently, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]; Danielson, 9 NY3d at 348-349), while according great deference to the trier of fact's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, observe their demeanor, and assess their credibility (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), we find that the verdict convicting defendant of failing to signal was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643-646 [2006]).

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 402 (1) (a) states that no "person shall operate, drive or park a motor vehicle on the public highways . . . unless such vehicle shall have a distinctive number assigned to it by the commissioner and a set of number plates issued by the commissioner . . . conspicuously displayed, one on the front and one on the rear of such vehicle." As the vehicle defendant was driving was registered in North Carolina and bore a license plate issued by North Carolina, rather than by the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, defendant did not violate Vehicle and Traffic Law § 402 (1) (a) (see generally Vehicle and Traffic Law § 250). In view of the foregoing, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]; Danielson, 9 NY3d at 348-349), while according great deference to the trier of fact's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, observe their demeanor, and assess their credibility (see Lane, 7 NY3d at 890; Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495), we find that the weight of the evidence fails to support the verdict convicting defendant of operating a motor vehicle without a front license plate.

Accordingly, the judgment convicting defendant of failing to signal is affirmed, and the judgment convicting defendant of operating a motor vehicle without a front license plate is reversed and the accusatory instrument charging that offense is dismissed.

GOLDBERG-VELAZQUEZ, J.P., DRISCOLL and WALSH, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: July 29, 2025