1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001

HAVE TO PRESERVE YOUR OBJECTIONS BELOW

FAILED TO PRESERVE CLAIMS THAT JUDGE WAS “BIASED” OR SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HERSELF

After a Suffolk County District Court Judicial Hearing Officer (JHO) found him guilty of speeding -- for diving 103 mph in a 55 mph zone -- SFRA appealed claiming that the JHO should have recused herself and was biased.

On its review of the record, the Appellate Term, Second Term, noted that SFRA had failed to preserve his objections when he was before the hearing officer and that omission precluded appellate review.

In any event, because the AT2 didn’t think that SFRA had been denied a fair trial or that the court had demonstrated any bias, the outcome was left undisturbed.

Did SFRA speed through that hearing, too?

# # #

DECISION

People v R.

Categories: