CAMERA LOGS AND SWORN TECHNICIAN’S CERTIFICATE ARE ALL THAT'S REQUIRED
After he was found liable by the New York City Parking Violations Bureau for speeding in a school-speed zone, "V.S." filed a special proceeding [pursuant to CPLR Article 78] to challenge the outcome.
And when the dispute was transferred to the Appellate Division, First Department, it was of the view the underlying dispute had been supported by “substantial evidence.” The camera’s daily set-up logs, and the sworn certificate of a technician that V.S. exceeded the speed limit by 10 miles per hour, constituted “prima facie evidence” of the violation.
And since this only involved a civil penalty, with no resulting criminal conviction, V.S. wasn’t entitled to all the usual constitutional protections that might have otherwise applied – such as “the protections of the Criminal Procedure Law or Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under the Federal and State Constitutions.” (Nor was he entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment, which didn't apply to state courts.)
Given that he was afforded notice of the violation, and an opportunity to be heard at a hearing where he could “testify, call witnesses, and present documentary evidence,” the AD1 also didn’t think his due process rights had been violated.
Bet the City thought that was a picture-perfect.
# # #