Gov. Cuomo's Proposed New Speeding Ticket Law Widely Misunderstood

Posted by Matthew Weiss on January 24, 2013  /   Posted in New York Traffic Lawyer Tips, Politics, traffic law, Traffic Tips & Info

Screen Shot 2013-01-24 at 1.15.10 PMIn his budget address this week, NYS Governor Andrew Cuomo discussed changing the laws regarding how a New York speeding ticket can be resolved.  Unfortunately, it has been widely mis-reported that the proposal would prevent prosecutors from plea bargaining speeding tickets.  This is simply NOT his proposal.

The Governor’s proposal is limited to speeding tickets in excess of 20 mph.  Under the proposed law, a prosecutor faced with a motorist with a speeding ticket of 21+ mph will not be able to plea bargain that ticket to a 0-point offense.  Rather, he or she would only be allowed to offer a plea that carries points.  A copy of the text of the proposed law appears in bold at the end of this post.

For instance, on a 6-point speeding ticket, a prosecutor could still offer a 2-point disobey a traffic control device ticket (2 points).  He or she, however, will not be able to offer a parking ticket or equipment violation.  The law does not affect a motorist with a 3- or 4-point speeding ticket.  For those lower speeding violations, prosecutors will still be able to offer 0-point dispositions.

The proposed law provides an exception to this restriction when the charge is “not warranted”.  In those cases, a 21+ speeding offense can be pled down to a 0-point violation.  However, this exception makes little sense.  If the 21+ speeding charge is “not warranted”, then the prosecutor should simply dismiss it.  I cannot think of any circumstances when an un-warranted charge should not result in a dismissal.

Cuomo’s proposed law limits prosecutorial discretion.  Under it, a motorist will an otherwise stellar record will be forced to blemish his or her license, or take the case to trial in an attempt to keep his or her license clean.  Our NY traffic ticket lawyers have appeared in the vast majority of the 600+ traffic courts, so I can comfortably write that this law WILL impact plea deals in some of these courts.  There are many traffic courts that currently will plea a speeding ticket to a 0-point ticket.  Of course, this practice would no longer occur if the new law is enacted.

Motorists are not the only ones who will be hurt by this proposed law.  The State loses money when a speeding ticket (actually when any ticket issued under the Vehicle and Traffic Law “VTL”) is pled down to a local regulation or ordinance.  In such instances, the local municipality gets to keep all of the revenue and there is no State mandatory surchage.  The new restriction will require thousands of tickets to remain VTL violations and, consequently, will allow the State to get more money.  Local municipalities that depend on traffic ticket revenue to supplement their budgets will be hurt significantly.  Further, in many instances, it will require motorists to pay more money than if they had pled the case down to a 0-point, no-surcharge ticket.

In fact, in my opinion, these economics (not claimed “driver safety”) is the true impetus behind this legislation and I am against it.  New York motorists are all ready highly “taxed” in numerous other ways (ex., record high license and registration fees, traffic ticket fines and surcharges, and Driver Assessment Fees).  Enough is enough.  The DMV should not be a de facto arm of the Department of Taxation.  Therefore, this law should not be adopted.

Proposed New Law – Vehicle And Traffic Law Section 1180(i)

Section 1180 of the vehicle and traffic law is amended by adding a new subdivision (i) to read as follows:

(i) In any case wherein the charge laid before the court alleges a violation of subdivision (b), (c), (d), (f), or (g) of this section and the speed upon which the charge is based exceeds the applicable speed limit by more than twenty miles per hour, any plea of guilty thereafter entered in satisfaction of such charge must include, at a minimum, a plea of guilty to a violation of this chapter or of any ordinance, rule or regulation adopted pursuant to this chapter for which points are assigned pursuant to the regulations of the commissioner; provided, however, that, if the district attorney, upon reviewing the available evidence, determines that the charge of a violation of subdivision (b), (c), (d), (f) or (g) of this section is not warranted, such district attorney  may consent to, and the court may allow, a disposition by plea of guilty to another charge. In all such cases, the court shall set forth upon the record the basis for such disposition (emphasis added).

A New (Illegal) Way To Avoid Red Light Camera Tickets

Posted by Matthew Weiss on January 23, 2013  /   Posted in Bizarre Traffic Stories, New York Traffic Lawyer Tips, traffic law, Traffic Tips & Info

Screen Shot 2013-01-20 at 11.47.40 AMGoldfinger is one of the best James Bond movies in the series and featured a tricked out Aston Martin.  Some of its gadgets included a passenger ejector seat and retractable bullet proof shield.  Its most subtle gadget was a license plate that you could rotate out with another by pushing a button.

Well, the NY Post reports that an NYPD officer built his own “flipper” plate for his personal  car.  Sgt. Grigory Bardash allegedly used the device to avoid red light camera tickets.  At the push of a button, Bardash’s plate would tilt in a way that the cameras could not take an image of it.

Before you get jealous, you should know that Bardash was arrested and charged with “obstructing  government administration”, a misdemeanor.

Besides the obvious fact that this alleged conduct is criminal, its only benefit was to save a modest amount of money (these tickets carry only a $50 fine).  Seems like Bardahs, therefore, planned on running a lot of red lights.

NYC Parking Ticket Checklist

Posted by Matthew Weiss on January 17, 2013  /   Posted in New York Parking Issues

Parking guru Lawrence Berenzin of newyorkparkingticket.com recently created the below checklist for motorists researching whether to fight their parking tickets.  Thanks Larry for allowing me to sharing it with my readers.

Click on image to expand.

Screen Shot 2013-01-17 at 11.06.52 AM

Teen Charged With Leaving The Scene Of An Accident After Facebook Admission

Posted by Matthew Weiss on January 09, 2013  /   Posted in New York Traffic Lawyer Tips, traffic law, Traffic Tips & Info

People write stupid things on various social media sites all the time but one Oregon teenager actually got himself arrested.  Jacob Cox-Brown recently posted on Facebook the below message about his New Year’s activities:

Two of Cox-Brown’s 600+ “friends” reported his online admission to the Astoria, Oregon Police who were already investigating two hit-and-run accidents.  Apparently he left pieces of his damaged car behind, and parked his vehicle at his house.  The police matched his car with the damaged pieces and charged him with two counts of failing to perform the duties of a driver (in New York called “leaving the scene”).

In New York, leaving the scene of an accident is broken up into two types – personal injury and property damage.  Leaving the scene involving personal injury occurs when a driver knowing (or having cause to know) that personal injury has caused to another person due to an incident involving his or her car.  It is a criminal charge (misdemeanor), carries 3 points and a hefty fine.  It also can result in jail time of up to one year.

In contrast, leaving the scene involving property damage is only a violation.  It still carries 3 points and a fine but is not a criminal charge.  Jail of up to 15 days can still be imposed.

Unfortunately, for Cox-Brown, the law for leaving the scene involving property damage is more serious than in New York.

On the other hand, the 18-year old did catch a break because he was not charged with “drivin” while intoxicated.  Despite his admission and his arrogant tongue sticking out emoticon :P , the police did not have any other evidence to support such a charge.

New Suffolk County Traffic Court Update

Posted by Matthew Weiss on December 26, 2012  /   Posted in New York Traffic Lawyer Tips

As a follow-up to my October, 2011 post entitled “More Details On The New Suffolk County Traffic Violations Bureau“, last week, a bill to create the infrastructure to establish a Suffolk County Traffic Violations Bureau (SC TVB) was passed at the General Meeting of the Suffolk Legislature in a vote of 16-0. The bill was co-sponsored by Legislators Rob Calarco and Kate Browning.

Critically, a press release from Calarco’s office about the bill states that the new Suffolk traffic court will have a “similar” model to the Nassau County and will “reduce the need for police overtime”.  I interpret this statement as the first official confirmation that motorists with Suffolk County traffic tickets WILL be able to engage in plea bargaining for most traffic tickets, a huge improvement for the driving public.

It further appears that the Suffolk traffic court will be located in the H. Lee Dennison Building in Hauppague.  This is a relatively convenient location for most Suffolk County residents and benefits from being a stone’s throw away from the current location for those motorists who mistakenly show up at the State Office Building.

Now if only New York City will follow Suffolk County’s lead.

How To Get A Speeding Ticket Dismissed

Posted by Matthew Weiss on December 19, 2012  /   Posted in New York Traffic Lawyer Tips, traffic law, Traffic Tips & Info

A dismissal of speeding ticket in is very hard to obtain.  Most police officers who issue such tickets are familiar with what they need to say, and great deference is given to their testimony.  With that said, there are things that will help you beat your ticket.

The most common way to win is if the officer doesn’t show up for your trial (sometimes two or more “no shows” are needed).  Without the issuing officer, the People cannot prove its case.  The motorist faced with an unavailable officer should move to dismiss based on “failure to prosecute”.

The next way that a speeding ticket will be dismissed is when the police office makes a major mistake during the trial.  Major mistakes include omitting critical information, testifying inconsistently or committing some type of other error.   For instance, we recently had an officer who testified perfectly about a speeding charge except he stated that the motorist was proceeding southbound.  We adeptly pointed out to the judge that the ticket stated “N/B” (i.e., northbound) and, consequently, the judge dismissed the speeding ticket.

In order to avail yourself of an officer’s mistake, you should be a really good listener and take notes during his direct testimony.  Also, when he rests, you get a chance to cross examine the officer.   Before you start your cross, ask the officer to see his notes and other relevant paperwork.  Read it and looked for anything inconsistent between those documents and his direct testimony.  The more inconsistencies that you can point out to the judge, the more likely that the judge will discredit the officer’s testimony.

Outside of the Traffic Violations Bureau, a motorist in New York can also seek dismissal of a speeding ticket when he or she is not timely served with a supporting deposition.  Specifically, when a supporting deposition is demanded, the officer only has 30 days to serve it.  This procedure is only available if your officer did not serve the supporting deposition (with your speeding ticket) at the time of your car stop and you timely demand it (i.e., within 48 hours of the issuance of the ticket or within 30 days of the arraignment date).

The foregoing are the most common ways that a speeding ticket can be dismissed in New York.  It is not an exhaustive list but certainly provides a good overview.  Good luck fighting your case!

NYC Red Light Camera Program Under Attack

Posted by Matthew Weiss on December 12, 2012  /   Posted in New York Traffic Lawyer Tips, traffic law, Traffic Tips & Info

Three motorists commenced a suit this week against New York City claiming that they were illegally issued red light camera tickets.  Specifically, they claim that the yellow lights at their respective intersections were less than 3 seconds and, therefore, violated Federal law.   A recent AAA study found that four red light cameras were issuing tickets even though the yellow light lasted 2.53 to 2.84 seconds.

Attorneys for the motorists intend to seek class action status and, then, obtain refunds for all victims of the illegal lights as well as halt of the program until its fixed.

It is really not likely that they’ll get the program ended (even temporarily).  The City has operated this program since 2007, currently has 318 red light cameras, and last year alone generated $47 million.  It will be interesting to see what, if any, relief will be afforded to motorists.

How To Avoid Traffic (Illegally)

Posted by Matthew Weiss on December 05, 2012  /   Posted in New York Traffic Congestion, New York Traffic Lawyer Tips, traffic law, Traffic Tips & Info

Absolutely no one likes sitting in backed-up traffic.  It’s the bane for any driver.  Some drivers respond by engaging in various illegal ways to avoid snarls.  Each of these maneuvers carry 2 DMV points, roughly a $150 fine and, most importantly, is very dangerous.

Let’s start with entering and exiting a highway.  In New York, there is only one way to legally enter a highway, expressway, parkway or thruway (using the entrance ramp) and only one way to legally exit (using the exit ramp).  Under Vehicle and Traffic Law (“VTL”) Section 1130(2), these rules apply to any roadway with “controlled-access” and the only exception is when directed otherwise by a police officer or traffic control device.

The most common time that motorists violate VTL Section 1130(2) is when the highway becomes stopped due to an accident or other obstruction.  In such cases, impatient motorists will drive out (or back up) an entrance ramp, a very dangerous maneuver.  For those who back out, they can also be charged with unsafe backing under VTL Section 1211(b) which specifically prohibits backing of any type on a controlled-access highway.

Another no-no (depicted above) is using a break in a highway dividing barrier to make a U-turn.  This dangerous maneuver violates VTL 1130(1) and, when a sign prohibiting such U-turns is posted (as is most of the case), also violates VTL 1110a.

Impatient drivers will try to avoid bumper-to-bumper traffic by driving on shoulders and slopes.  This unsafe action violates VTL 1131 and epitomizes an accident waiting to happen.  One can only drive onto the shoulder to stop, stand or park in an emergency (or if directed by a police officer).

Off the highway, a common maneuver to illegally bypass traffic is cutting through a parking lot or other establishment.  Unsafe motorists take this action to avoid an intersection or traffic control device.  This move is illegal and is particularly dangerous to pedestrians.  VTL 1225.  Similarly, driving on the sidewalk is generally illegal unless one is actually trying to access lands adjacent to the roadway.  VTL 1225-A.

The bottom line that your should be on the look out for the above knuckle head maneuvers so you don’t become an accident victim.  And, for those of you who are considering a “creative” answer to a traffic jam, PLEASE don’t lose patience.  It’s much more important to be safe than sorry.

Your Business Owner's Policy May Provide Coverage For Your Company's Hurricane Sandy Losses

Posted by Matthew Weiss on November 29, 2012  /   Posted in Entrepreneurship

If you were among the many business owners in our region that were adversely affected by Hurricane Sandy, then you may have a claim under your Business Owner’s Policy (BOP).  A BOP policy contains a package of various types of coverages.  I recently checked our policy and believe that we have three types of applicable coverages. I hope the below discussion is helpful for you to figure out whether you have any viable claims.

The first and most obvious is a claim for business interruption coverage.  Our traffic lawyers fight any type of moving violation issued anywhere in New York State.  We were without power for one week and, as a result, the landlord closed our building.  During the closure, I continued to incur indirect costs such as rent, salaries, etc. despite the fact that our office was not operational and most of my staff couldn’t do any their work.  While most policies have a 1-, 2- or 3-day waiting period, in my case (and many others), the waiting period was satisfied when we lost power for such a long time.  In addition to the lost indirect costs, I also think that I can show a loss of revenue based on comparisons to other periods of time.  Loss of revenue is also covered by most policies with business interruption coverage.

The next type of coverage is called “dependent property”.  Generally, a dependent property is a location upon which your business relies for revenue.  In my traffic law firm’s case, there are two traffic courts that were closed on the day of the storm through November 26, 2012.  A third traffic court (my main one) in Manhattan remains closed. My business is losing revenue due to these closures.  I know that such a claim is viable for us because, following 9/11, we recovered $10,000 when this same traffic court (located just blocks from Ground Zero) was closed for an extended period of time.

Finally, I observed coverage for “off premises utility”.  As best I can discern, this coverage is for loss of utility service (other than at my office) that causes a loss.  To me, this appears to be similar to dependent property coverage but certainly we’ll be filing a claim under both theories.

We haven’t heard back from the insurance company regarding our claim but I’m told that it may denied because we didn’t have flood coverage.  As the argument goes, the closures and utility disruptions were as a result of flooding and therefore are not covered.  I’ll keep you posted.  Meanwhile, if you think that you have a claim, then you should file it via certified mail immediately (and make a copy of your letter).  A delay in reporting your loss could result in a denial of coverage.

How We Remained "Open" During Hurricane Sandy And Its Aftermath

Posted by Matthew Weiss on November 28, 2012  /   Posted in Entrepreneurship, Personal

Many companies have elaborate and lengthy plans to deal with an emergency or casualty.  For our Manhattan-based law firm whose traffic ticket lawyers fight moving violations issued throughout New York State, we have a three-step plan.  Our plan is so simple, we don’t even have to document it.  While larger operations need a formalized, written plan, I believe for most small business owners our process will work.

In fact, I know that this plan works as our law firm remained “open” during one of the worst disasters to ever strike New York City.  We have many traffic ticket clients from upstate New York, Ontario, Quebec, New Jersey and elsewhere who were unaffected by the storm.  They contacted us and wanted a response.  I’m proud to write that we answered almost every telephone call, email and fax, covered every scheduled case and even managed to get hired on a few new matters.  All this while our building was closed for a week, mass transit was shut down, and most of our staff were without power and displaced from their homes.

Caveat:  I want to first define what I mean by the word “open”.  I do not mean fully operational.  In fact, I don’t even mean that you could come to our office.  Our building was closed and without power for one week following the storm.  Instead, what I mean by “open” is able to answer and respond to calls, emails and faxes, and ensure that all urgent work is covered.  One person cannot replace the work of seven employees and roughly 25 of-counsel attorneys.  But one person can keep you treading water so that immediate needs are handled.

With the understanding that this process does not prevent business interruption or loss of revenue, here are the three steps.

Step 1: The remote employee.  You need one key person who works remotely in a location far from your business’ location.  Of course, he or she better be highly competent and well versed in all facets of your business.  In our case, our office manager, Rosemarie (who works from her home office in Jacksonville, Florida) is an A-player.

The rationale behind step one is obvious.  When an area is hit with a disaster, your staff is rendered virtually useless.  They are likely home-bound without electricity, WIFI and possibly even cell phone service.  Further, your employees are dealing with more pressing issues like protecting themselves, their family and home immediately before and during the emergency and, then, dealing with food, gas, lack of hot water, darkness, etc during its aftermath.

With a remote employee, your business has someone who is not impacted by the casualty and who can focus on keeping the business up-and-running by handling sales, operations and customer service issues.

Step 2: VOIP telephones.  Get a VOIP telephone system.  This internet-based system allows anyone with internet access and one of our telephones to answer our phone calls anywhere in the world.  Plus it is less expensive than maintaining land lines.  To the customer, it appears that his or her call is being answered at the business location.  Despite massive power outages, record flooding and Hurricane-speed winds, Rosemarie answered almost every call that came in while the rest of our crew was dealing with the disaster.

Step 3: Cloud-Based Systems.  The final step is having all your operations in the clouds.  We use Gmail, Google calendar and Google documents.  It is free and works great.  For faxes, we pay a small monthly fee to get them emailed to us.  Finally, our database is cloud-based and was adeptly designed by Reliable Group. This application handles sales, contact management, calendaring, billing and operations.  Our application is customize built but there are many “off-the-shelves” cloud solutions (a modern day oxymoron) that do the trick.  As you can read, with the cloud-based items most of our work can be done anywhere  that has internet access.  Further, Reliable made sure that our cloud server was hosted with a company located outside the New York area (and which had multiple back-ups).  This combination allowed our application to remain un-interrupted throughout the storm and its aftermath.

Combining the three steps, you see that Rosemarie could answer and respond to calls emails and faxes, look up what cases we had scheduled, assign attorneys, obtain court results, etc., etc.  A side benefit was that she could also monitor the television for traffic court closures and mass transit information, and update us with storm news.

While imperfect, if you implement these three steps, you can minimize interruption to your business and be in a much better position once the storm passes.

  • Testimonials

    Extremely knowledgeable and took their time to make sure I understood everything I would like to personally thank you for handling my Traffic Ticket. It has been a pleasure working with you. Your Team is a pleasure to speak to. Giselle and Jennifer are fantastic. When I called to ask them a question, they were extremely knowledgeable and took their time to make sure I understood everything. Aaron F (Florida)Aaron F.
  • Free Tips to Beat a Traffic Ticket

    Enter Your E-mail To Get Our Free Tip Sheet!

  • Contact Information

    440 Park Ave So, 3rd Floor
    New York, NY 10016
    212-683-7373
    Monday-Friday 9am-5pm