Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Southeast, Putnam County (Richard W. Vercollone, J.), rendered July 19, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of speeding.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), the testimony by a qualified police officer as to his visual estimate of the speed of defendant's vehicle, which exceeded the speed limit by more than 20 miles per hour, was legally sufficient to sustain the conviction (People v Olsen, 22 NY2d 230, 232 [1968]; e.g. People v Ramaker, 9 Misc 3d 131[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51592[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; People v Crawford, 5 Misc 3d 137[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51558[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; see also People v Heyser, 2 NY2d 390, 394 [1957]). The additional proof, that the officer employed a properly calibrated radar device to measure defendant's speed at a rate nearly identical to the visual estimate, sufficed independently to prove the offense (People v Dusing, 5 NY2d 126, 128 [1959]). Even were the proof of calibration inadequate, the visual estimate sufficiently corroborated the radar measurement to render "any perceived deficiency in the radar evidence . . . of no consequence" (People v Knight, 72 NY2d 481, 488 [1988]; e.g. People v Magri, 3 NY2d 562, 567 [1958]; People v Ramaker, 9 Misc 3d 131[A], 2005 NY Slip [*2]Op 51592[U], supra; People v Davis, 5 Misc 3d 137[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51559[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]).

Upon this record, the court's determinations with respect to the credibility of the witnesses, resolving contradictory testimony, and the weight to be accorded the evidence as a whole, should not be disturbed (CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Gruttola, 43
NY2d 116, 122 [1977]; People v Pazmino, 179 AD2d 385, 386 [1992]; People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]).

Rudolph, P.J., Angiolillo and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 14, 2007