PEOPLE v. MARGOLIS (2020)

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was charged in two simplified traffic informations with, respectively, speeding (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 [d]) and failure to dim headlights (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [3]). A nonjury trial was conducted at which the officer who ticketed defendant and defendant herself were the only testifying witnesses. At the trial's conclusion, the court convicted defendant of speeding, acquitted her of failure to dim headlights, and sentenced her to pay a fine.

On appeal, defendant argues, in effect, that her conviction was against the weight of the trial evidence. After carefully “weigh[ing] the relative probative forces of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony” and according “great deference ․ to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor” (People v. Devaul, 60 Misc 3d 130[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50993[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2018] ), we affirm the judgment of conviction.

At the trial, the police officer testified that he was certified in the police academy to be accurate with his estimates of the speed of moving vehicles to within three miles per hour (mph). He observed defendant's vehicle and estimated its speed to be 46 mph, which was faster than the two posted 30 mph signs defendant had passed. He paced defendant's vehicle, for approximately 600-800 feet while driving at 48 mph. Defendant's trial testimony, that she was driving only 34 mph, was nevertheless an admission to driving faster than the posted speed limit. Defendant, by her pro se appellate arguments, seeks to relitigate the trial. However, the District Court's thoughtful reasoning for acquitting defendant of the failure to dim headlights charge, while convicting her of speeding, convinces us “that the trier of fact has given the evidence the weight it should be accorded, [and consequently] the verdict should not be disturbed” (id.; see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

ADAMS, P.J., RUDERMAN and EMERSON, JJ., concur.