Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Cortlandt, Westchester County (Gerald M. Klein, J.), entered November 1, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of speeding.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.

It is well settled that the opinion evidence of a police officer, uncorroborated by mechanical devices, may, in a proper case, be sufficient to sustain a speeding conviction. The officer must demonstrate some experience in observing the rate of speed of moving objects, and some consideration must be given to the variance between the estimated speed of the vehicle and the established speed limit (see People v Olsen, 22 NY2d 230 [1968]). Here, the officers testified as to their expertise in visually assessing the speed of vehicles, and said testimony established that they were properly qualified to give opinion evidence on the subject. Moreover, the variance of 25 miles per hour between the officers' visual observations that defendant was traveling at a rate of speed of 80 miles per hour and the posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour, was great enough to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was speeding (People v Olsen, 22 NY2d 230, supra; People v Crawford, 5 Misc 3d 137[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51558[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). In any event, the reading from the untested radar unit coupled with the officers' visual estimates was sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Magri, 3 NY2d 562 [1958]).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach defendant's remaining contentions.
Decision Date: September 30, 2005