Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York,

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Vincent DeJANA, Appellant.

Decided: January 27, 1997

Before STARK, J.P., and COLLINS and INGRASSIA, JJ. Ressa & Aitken, Port Washington, for appellant.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.

The trier of fact chose to credit the testimony of the complainant police officer to the effect that while he could not see the particular lens in the traffic light facing defendant, he could see its reflection which was red.   Thus, the People adduced sufficient evidence to establish the color of the light when passed by defendant (People v. Wright, NYLJ, Dec. 29, 1980, at 14, col. 2 [App. Term, 9th & 10th Jud. Dists.];   cf., Squadrito v. State of New York, 34 Misc.2d 758, 761, 229 N.Y.S.2d 540) and the case is readily distinguishable from decisions of other courts, which pertain to the situation of the officer merely being able to describe the color of the light facing a different direction from that facing the defendant (People v. Ellsessor, 52 Misc.2d 588, 276 N.Y.S.2d 232;  People v. Parker, 43 Misc.2d 1081, 252 N.Y.S.2d 877;  People v. Bates, 26 Misc.2d 862, 209 N.Y.S.2d 229).

Parenthetically, it may also be noted that there was additional testimony from the officer that he checked the traffic signal before the incident and found it working properly in sequence.