232 A.D. 475 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1931
Defendant was convicted of a violation of subdivision 5 of section 70 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The statute in question provides as follows: “ Any person operating a motor vehicle or motor cycle who, knowing that damage has been caused to a vehicle, due to the culpability of the person operating such motor vehicle or motor cycle, or to accident, leaves the place where the damage occurred without stopping and giving his name, residence, including street and number, and license number to the party sustaining the damage, or to a police officer, or in case no police officer is in the vicinity of the place where the damage occurred then reporting the same to the nearest police station, or judicial officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
On February 14, 1931, at half-past two o’clock in the afternoon, defendant Was driving a Hupmobile sedan in a northerly direction on Fifth avenue between Fifty-first and Fifty-second streets. With
We are of the opinion that the proofs were insufficient to justify the conviction of the defendant upon the charge against him. In the complaint the defendant was charged as follows: “ David S. Thomas * * * did violate the provisions of subdivision 5 of Section 70, Chapter 54 of the Laws of 1929, known as the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law bf the State of New York, in that a motor vehicle driven by defendant over and along 5th Avenue and 52nd Street, in the said county having collided with the vehicle of deponent, due to the culpability said defendant knowing that damage was caused to the vehicle of deponent, did then and there leave the place of said damage or accident, without stopping, giving his name, residence, including street and street number, and his (defendant’s) license number to the party sustaining the damage, to wit: said complainant, or to a police officer who was in the immediate vicinity of the place of injury or accident, or reporting said damage or accident forthwith to the nearest police station.” (Italics are
The judgment of conviction should be reversed, the complaint dismissed, the fine imposed upon defendant remitted, and defendant discharged.
Finch, P. J., McAvot, Martin and Sherman, JJ., concur.
Judgment reversed, the complaint dismissed, the fine remitted and the defendant discharged.