Per Curiam
Giaccio appealed from a judgment convicting him of speeding, alleging the proof was legally insufficient to support the conviction. The unanimous panel disagreed finding the proof legally sufficient to establish Giaccio’s guilt. The panel noted a state trooper showed the court his radar operation certification issued by the state police. Also, it stated the trooper testified he conducted the appropriate calibration tests on the radar device, and it was working properly. As such, the panel found the trooper’s testimony, as a qualified operator, that he used a properly calibrated radar device to measure Giaccio’s speed at 81 miles per hour (mph) in a posted 65 mph zone, sufficed independently to prove a violation of Vehicle & Traffic Law §1180(d). It ruled even if proof of the calibration of the radar was inadequate, a reading from an untested unit, coupled with a qualified officer’s visual estimate, sufficed to prove the offense, especially if the estimate sufficiently corroborated the radar measurement to render an perceived deficiency in the radar evidence of no consequence. The court concluded the trooper’s testimony that he visually estimated the speed of Giaccio’s car to be 85 mph, which exceeded the speed limit by 20 mph, was alone sufficient to establish Giaccio’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
