Free: Fight NYC School Zone Speed Camera and Red Light Camera Tickets With My App

UPDATE 7/6/21: Glory be, they seem to be seeing the light! Pure speculation on my part, but it seems like after the DMV ticket jockeys returned to the office, someone must’ve told them that this ticket bot has a point, as they’ve started accepting the defense and agreeing far more often. I’m getting two or three success stories per week. Fight on, everyone … at least until they hire a notary!

Another UPDATE: We’ve had a lot of people use the app so far. (Thanks, DeBlasio, you worthless politician.)

As of 9/29/20, I’m hearing back from many users that the DMV ticket jockeys are rejecting this defense, with the following rubber stamp responses:

  • Argument not persuasive.
  • CPLR is a civil procedure rule, which is not applicable to DMV clerks.
  • Ticket is valid, seal/notary or not.

These responses are crap and multiple court opinions have already addressed this and come to the opposite conclusion. But, the DMV is still ignoring the court’s opinion for now. Feel free to keep appealing, if you wish. The Court’s opinion and the law are very clear, but that doesn’t stop DMV clerks from ignoring the law for as long as possible. There is at least one class action lawsuit pending right now, and, should that fail, another will surely be filed, seeking to refund all tickets issued by the city, but as with everything in the law, there are no guarantees.

UPDATE: As of 8/12/2020, an NYC Court – the Supreme Court for the State of New York – New York County (Manhattan) – has ruled that the city’s issuance of tickets without notary seals is illegal. That opinion joins a few others from Nassau County and elsewhere. I built an app that uses the authority from those cases to help you fight back.

The latest court decision is here.

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. If you need legal advice, hire a lawyer. (Not me for tickets though – I do wills/trusts/QDROs/Prenups.)

Original post follows:

You hate them. I hate them. Even with the city in crisis and schools shut down, these “school safety” speed cameras and red light cameras act as a tax upon drivers in this city, ticketing them just enough to hurt (and enough to add up to millions in revenue for the city), but not enough that anyone will fight back. After all, what’s the sense in hiring a lawyer to fight back against a $50 ticket?

That’s why I created this machine. These tickets – which are clearly illegal under state law and which courts have agreed are illegal in their current form – are still being handed out to thousands of drivers every day because the city knows that it costs more to fight back than it does to pay the ticket and move on. (That is true even if, like me, you’re a cranky lawyer that doesn’t have to pay legal fees to fight back.)

Personally, my wife got one ticket last year. (Well, the car is in my name, so “I” got the ticket.)

Then another. And another two for Mother’s Day.

While most of the city was hunkered down, she was on her way to fight COVID as an underpaid medical resident, collecting even more tickets on her way to volunteer duty. Some of her fellow frontline residents – who are barely paid enough for rent and food – have thousands of dollars in tickets from rushing to provide aid to critically ill individuals. Did I mention that these “school zone” cameras are operating while the schools are closed?

So I fought back. And lost. And lost the appeal of that loss, despite clear court decisions that an identical program outside of the City was operating illegally. The appeals were quickly dismissed by Department of Finance clerks as lacking any merit, even though the law is extremely clear:

To be effective such a [technician’s] certificate must be sworn to or affirmed before a notary public or other authorized official.

Yes, it’s that simple. The technician’s certificate that accompanies your ticket must be notarized. Or sworn to by a lawyer, doctor, or dentist. That’s the law. None of the tickets are notarized.

And despite a court in Nassau County ruling in 2015 that the tickets had to be notarized, neighboring NYC continues to brazenly issue illegal tickets because nobody will fight back. (The city could easily hire notaries to stamp the technician’s certificates, but they don’t.)

Well, almost nobody. In addition to my quixotic quest, another lawyer filed a class action lawsuit seeking to invalidate all of the tickets. All of them. And while he didn’t succeed in setting us all free from tyranny (the class action part of the lawsuit was denied), an NYC court did rule on August 12, 2020 that the form of the tickets was invalid and that technician’s certificates must be accompanied by a notary’s seal.

I’m still debating filing a lawsuit (which costs about $300) to fight my ticket even further, and perhaps seek relief for all of the other folks who are getting these stupid, illegal tickets.

In the meantime, I’m hoping you won’t have to take it that far. The following quick generator will give you a cut-and-paste argument to fight your red light or speeding camera ticket in NYC. It is not guaranteed to succeed – like I said, despite clear law, I lost all of my appeals that came before the August 12, 2020 decision – but copying and pasting beats capitulating.

 

149 Responses

  1. Hi thanks for doing this! I used your document for 2 tickets issued last week in August, same week, 2 blocks from my home where I know theres a camera and never speed. The judgement was upheld on both essentially citing the ticket is valid seal or no seal. I know you said the same happened to you but what do you suggest as next steps? This is infuriating!!

    1. You can keep appealing, over and over. Right now, it seems like they are simply ignoring the courts and the clear text of the law until they are forced to do otherwise.

      Appealing through the “Pay or Dispute” app or website, per their instructions, is free, but may be a waste of time other than sending these idiots a message. Once an “appeal board” of DMV clerks rejects your final appeal, you are free to file a lawsuit (which nobody does over a $50 ticket, except for the lawyer behind the class action lawsuit against the city – not me – that has been fighting this battle for over a year).

      1. The Technician Certificate on my Notice of Liability seems deficient. The signature of the Technician clearly does not match the printed version of the Technician’s name. Do you think that is a good argument that I can use to ask for dismissal?

  2. Thank you for posting this. It’s so upsetting. I’ve been driving in the City for over 40 years without incident. DeBlasio narrowed the streets and trucks are triple parking on both sides along with frequent construction. This doesn’t seem to be enforced. My tickets were driving to and from doctor appointments and volunteering to deliver food through volunteer organizations. Guess what – I’m no longer doing this because of the tickets.

  3. They wrote that the evidence is not credible: “The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone. Respondent states that the certification was not proper and invoked the Decision rendered in Monroe St. versus City of New York. This is not a persuasive defense as the decision applies only to NOL 5105637495. Summons sustained.”

    Complete BS!

    Anything you think I should add on appeal?

    1. Hey Joe. Sorry, I can’t provide legal advice (and am terrible about responding to comments on here – real voices get drowned out by spam, sadly). It seems like they are going to ignore the court’s opinion and continue issuing invalid tickets until a class action lawsuit stops them.

  4. When I click on the Camera Ticket Buster above, I get a blank box – no cut and paste argument comes up. Is this a glitch? I received a Notice of Liability/Certificate Charging The Liability. The reverse side does show the Technician Certificate but there is no notary’s seal. It was for speeding (41) in a school zone (30). I did not see any signs that it was a school zone. There area was NB West St. @ Leroy Street on 10/20/20 at 3:37 pm.

    1. Hey Roe,

      It must’ve been a glitch. The platform I used to build the app may have been down for maintenance when you tried it.

      Sorry about that!

        1. If you are serious and want to take this to the next step I’d be interested, and anyone who feels that the time has come to fight this abuse should also consider joining a class action suit

  5. I got a speed zone ticket in a school zone going 12 miles over the posted but again schools are closed and I don’t think it’s valid and I want to fight it so what can I do Oh and the ticket is also not notarized

    1. As mentioned in the above blog post, you can try to fight it using the free app/copy-paste argument I provided. State law, court opinions from multiple courts, all point to these tickets being invalid unless notarized.

      BUT the DMV is ignoring the courts for now. Fighting will piss them off, and send a message, but unless you want to fight it, appeal, appeal again, and maybe file a lawsuit, it’s probably going to end with you paying the city $50. It sucks. We have a half-dozen of these, plus a trio of more expensive tickets that we got yesterday, to deal with. City is broke. Revenue by any means possible, I suppose.

  6. Hey Will,

    So i submitted it, it kicked me out of the system twice when I tried to submit it. They really want to just make you give up! They also wouldn’t accept special characters so the ” § ” had to be taken out before they would allow it all to be submitted. Now I wait.

    I find it funny that they still do this even though that guy Monroe Street won this case and that they keep denying people on this basis.

    1. Thanks for the note on the special characters – I’ll remove those from the app.

      I have gotten a couple of success stories back, including one that hilariously was a split decision: two tickets fought, one won/one lost. But for the most part, they are issuing these as-is, hoping that nobody files a class action lawsuit and gets refunds for the city’s motorists. (Seriously … all they have to do to make these “legal” is to hire a notary. It’s madness.)

  7. I’m disabled. Had few court cases filed as a poor person and court fees waved. If you’re interested to use me to teach De Bozo a lesson is civics, I’m at your service. Let me know, I have one of these profit by policing tickets on my table I know I’m going to be found guilty of if I try to argue it.

    1. Hey Sam. Got your email and I’ll respond over there, but in case anyone else is reading, I’m not taking on any cases right now outside of QDROs and estate planning. I prefer paperwork to litigation. I’d rather spend my time with my baby girl than in a courtroom.

  8. Hello, I recently used this information to try and fight a speed light camera summons. Thank you for providing this template to use. I will keep you updated and hopefully my summons will be dismissed.

    Thanks, Eric

  9. Hello Mr. Peacock, thank you for providing this service even though it seems that the NYC Dept of Finance are as you mentioned “right now, it seems like they are simply ignoring the courts and the clear text of the law until they are forced to do otherwise.” Anyway, I used your rubber stamp response and four (4) days later I received this rubber stamp verdict.

    “Respondent cited to Monroe v. City of New York, Index No. 158466/19 (N.Y. Co. Aug. 13, 2020), and a non-binding case from Nassau County which have been carefully reviewed. The enabling statute provides that the Technician’s Certificate may be sworn to or affirmed and a review of the Technican’s Certificate shows that it was affirmed by the techician. Though I recognize that the Supreme Court is a Court, I do not find the cited decisions controlling in the absence of authority so holding. The Monroe decision itself, by its terms, applies only to the dismissal of the specific Notice of Liability in question in that case. As the Notice of Liability herein complies with the enabling statute, and as Respondent does not deny driving at the cited speed, the Notice of Liability is sustained.”

    Do you have a rubber stamp response appeal to this rubber stamp verdict?

    1. I can’t provide legal advice, especially in blog comments, but to that particular DMV ticket jokey, I’d say that even if the Monroe decision isn’t “binding” and was limited to that single ticket, it should be a persuasive reading of the clear text of the statute. In combination with a similar holding out of Nassau County, the clear weight of the cases that have been decided so far are that the tickets, as issued, don’t comply with the clear text of the statute.

      In fact, I might edit the app to proactively address that bullcrap rubber stamp response. Thank you for sharing!

  10. Disposition: ADJOURNMENT
    Violation Decisions: OTHR MERIT CLAIM/INSUFF EVIDENCE
    The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone. Adjourned for 30 days for respondent to make a FOIL request to NYC for the information they seek and submit a defense. NYC DOF , Hearings by Mail Unit PO Box 29021 Cadman Plaza station Brooklyn, NY 11202

    What should I do next?

    1. Not sure Tim – it sounds like you said that you didn’t have information from the ticket (hence the FOIL request – The freedom of information law is used to get publicly available information from government agencies). Never seen that response from the DMV!

  11. Just submitted will let you all know.. I got a ticket at 9:40PM at night and its was far from any school. Schools closed by this idiot Diblasio anyway – so how are they still giving tickets when schools are closed and it’s 9:40pm?

    1. Maddening, isn’t it? As were the tickets handed out for school zone violations when schools were shut down due to the pandemic. You wouldn’t believe how many of our city’s doctors were given tickets for school zone speed violations while they were facing the surge in March. My wife and her fellow medical residents’ group chat was half COVID, half complaining about tickets.

  12. Thank you for the template and very useful info. I just got my replay and the judgement was sustained. The decision noted: “Notice bears prima facie case and points to legally valid supporting documentation. NYS/NYC records show respondent’s vehicle in violation of regulation and does not corroborate claim. Respondent’s claim is unpersuasive. Notice is sustained.” I will appeal but I did want to share this anyone who will find it helpful.

  13. They Dismissed my Ticket

    Violation Decisions: NPF/OTHER INADEQUATE OFFENSE DESC. Violation Number: 4716391267 The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone. Defectively written NOL is dismissed. Dismissal is not on the merits.

  14. Hey just wanted to thank you for this. My result on my end was denied. Couldn’t hurt to try at least with their bs.
    “NYS/NYC records and monitoring (photo/video) equipment show respondent’s
    vehicle in violation of regulation and does not corroborate claim. Respondent’s claim is unpersuasive. Notice is sustained.” *insert eyeroll*

  15. The Technician Certificate on my Notice of Liability appears deficient. The Technician’s signature clearly does not match the printed version of their name. Do you think that could be a good argument for dismissal?

  16. re: the “as” decision- please, explain your defense of the ticket. mr. peacock, please, get the defense, and post it=post haste. thank you, very much, indeed.

  17. Hello Mr. Peacock, thank you for providing this service.
    When I went to the NYC violation website and searched my license plate I got three violations for speeding in a school zone. However, no image of either tickets are available. Just says that this violation # has no attached image. Would that be a valid defense argument? If they cannot provide details of violation how they expect me to pay for something I cannot even see..?

    Thanks,

    1. Probably not. They should show the ticket in the app and on the website, but they don’t. If you reach out to them about it, they’ll point you to a vendor’s website, if I remember correctly, where it is available and they’ll swear up and down that they mailed you a paper copy as well.

      I’ve tried to fight based on the website says “no ticket available” angle and they denied it.

  18. I took a different approach and requested to cross examine all of the evidence that the law requires the automated speed cameras to adhere to. Technician training requirements, calibration records, and a few other variables for consideration to qualify the reliability of the data. In addition, I argued that NY state must conform to federal MUTCD standards published by the FWHA “Traffic control devices installed on such facilities within the State of New York are required to conform to the MUTCD, published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)”. I contested that the photographic evidence and speed camera “self-test” evidence is not enough to prove the speed and that the distance must also be verified. The FWHA manual does include a section that a speed camera should be accompanied by painted distance lines in the enforcement detection area (having trouble finding that documentation again).

    I also may have a a case with regards to the specific location of the camera in Rockaway on a four lane highway with a divider that happened to pass through a school zone. There are no approaching speed limit signs for at least a mile until one is posted literally where the camera exists going Westbound. The Eastbound lanes have an advance speed limit sign posted as well as a photo enforced sign. I don’t believe it would qualify as sufficient distance or advance warning due to its location compared to the Eastbound lanes. I did not state this case in my original response yet or explain my need for additional cross examination information outside of the standard FOIL information (which is useless).

    The NY law states ” 2. No photo speed violation monitoring system shall be used in a
    school speed zone unless (i) on the day it is to be used it has success-
    fully passed a self-test of its functions; and (ii) it has undergone an
    annual calibration check performed pursuant to paragraph four of this
    subdivision. The city [may] SHALL install signs giving notice TO
    APPROACHING MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATORS that a photo speed violation moni-
    toring system is in use [to be mounted on advance warning signs notify-
    ing motor vehicle operators of such upcoming school speed zone and/or on
    speed limit signs applicable within such school speed zone], in conform-
    ance with standards established in the MUTCD.”

    My first response from the court was as follows:

    The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone.
    the images and documentation provided do not prove the vehicle was speeding. Respondent did distance over time calculations and believes the equipment is incorrect. The focal length and field of vision are not set up to provide a reliable platform for these calculations. These photos are used for identification purposes only. Respondent requests information regarding the machine, its calibration and operating condition. Adjourned for 30 days to give respondent the opportunity to submit a FOIL request for this documentation. Adjourned.

    I requested FOIL information but was originally denied and told to use a different system specifically setup for the speed cameras. The automated system simply sent me the video and photo evidence but none of the other cross examination information I requested about the technology used to calculate and detect the speed, the servicing technicians qualifications, the annual calibration test and the make and manufacturer of the speed camera. These are all within my right to request in a court of law to examine as evidence. The secondary FOIL request I made responded that the information would not be able to be retrieved until June of 2021, or about 6 months out.

    I responded to the court with the FOIL request delay and they responded with the following with horrible grammar and spell checking and even made an error about the 56 mph. Incredibly unprofessional for a “court” to respond with so many errors.

    “The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone. In the initiaal submission respondent claimed that the distance travelled over the amount of time between the photos does not establish that he was travelling 56 miles per hour at the cited place and time is without merit. As stated by the ALJ in the order of adjournment, the photos identify the vehicle. The speed of the vehicle is not established by distance travelled over time as reflected in the photos. The speed is determined by radar readings taken at the cited place and time. These readings persuasively establish that respondent’s vehicle was travelling at 41 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone. Respondent also requested calibration information for the equipmebnt. The ALJ granted respodnent a 30 day adjournment to file a FOIL request for this this information. Respondent states that the initial FOIL request was denied and asks for a further adjournment. This request is denied as the calibration information is available to respondent by following the instructions in the notice of liability to view records. This information has been reviewed, as has the daily cameral log, alos available to respondent in the same manner, and these documents persuasviely establish that the speed camera at the cited location was in good working order at the time of this violation and that it accurately recoreded the speed of respondent’s vehicle.”

    From the 2020 mandated survey: http://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/new_york_ae2020_survey.pdf
    “10). By selecting school zones for ASE locations, New York has also complied with the federal guidelines which state that school zone enforcement has a “high level of support,” making it “a good way to introduce ASE in a jurisdiction”

    Can NYC prove they have a “high level of support” and how? Can we prove that they don’t have high level of support amongst the community? When was there a vote or a survey taken and how was it done?

    I want to make another statement but wanted to post my progress here to see if anyone has any tips or advice what angle to take next. Looks like there are a lot of blatant errors happening with other cameras in other states and tickets are being thrown out. Specifically in MD. I don’t mind speed cameras but I hate entrapment. There should be ample and sufficient warning that a camera exists for the purposes of safety, not to entrap people or trick them. Speed humps, blinking lights, and many other methods can be utilized before automated speed cameras. This system must be modified.

    New York City also responded to the mandated annual survey that their ASE is not audited. This should be mandatory for 3rd party auditing of their system otherwise it’s just a racket.

    1. This man, right here, is the real hero. Truth be told, I’d bet good money that most of these cameras don’t comply with MUTCD and I know of a few in the Rockaway area that had ZERO signs (at first). Seems like they’re slapping up the cameras and waiting until someone calls them out on the signage issues, at which point, they’ll toss that one ticket and put up a sign. Meanwhile, they literally make millions.

      Auditing every camera in the city for MUTCD issues would be fun, albeit a ton of time spent for $50 tickets. Which is, of course, the city’s entire business model here.

      1. I used the argument Mr. Catalano advanced as well as the notary argument. The website of the violation had the camera roll and the calibration certificate from within the year, however, the daily self-test notice required by statute was completely blank. The ALJ decision says the statute only requires an affirmation, and that the camera was tested “around the time” of the violation – not on the day of violation as required by statute. The fact that the ALJ does not give the specific date of the self-test leads me to believe that she also did not have access to the evidence of the self-test on the date of the violation, and just “guessed”. Haven’t decided whether it’s worth continuing to fight on appeal.

  19. I have a number of tickets that I have been been fighting with mixed success. Mixed is probably overstating it… I’ve been getting some adjournments, and some loses.

    You say at one point “I’m still debating filing a lawsuit (which costs about $300) to fight my ticket even further, and perhaps seek relief for all of the other folks who are getting these stupid, illegal tickets.”
    I would be very interested in chipping in and participating. Or even doing myself (ideally with your guidance). Or if you could point me to lawyer who is filing class action lawsuit.

    I may have enough tickets where its worthwhile. And several that did not include a certificate of calibration, which is required to be done once a year and records kept. But not required to be presented upon request some judges say, which of course is ridiculous.

    Would you be willing to contact me further to discuss?

    1. I wish I had the time or the money to fight this battle, but I don’t. There is a guy – I mentioned him in the app – that did the class action on the Manhattan case cited and linked in the above post.

    1. They were tolling the time limits for a while there, due to COVID. Did they stop extending the appeal times?

  20. Hello, Thank You for putting together a defence template for speed camera. When I try to download the template, I see a empty file with no text. Is it possible for you email me the template, please?

  21. They reject the NYS ruling by saying its non-binding and specific to that NOL case. My case just came back today.
    ” Respondent claims that the Notice of Liability (NOL) should be dismissed because NYC has failed to establish a prima facie case since the Technician’s Certificate is not notarized. Respondent submits/cites a NYS Supreme Court Decision, NY County, Index NO.158466/19 to support claim. However, the decision is not binding and refers only to the specific NOL in that case. The statute for the above regulation allows non notarized technician certificates as long as they are sworn to or affirmed and a signature is sufficient.”

    I would point out that the calibration certificates they use are very poorly written and scientifically don’t show the camera radar is calibrated correctly. But the Judge is okay with that.

    1. Yeah, these clerks are jackasses. The actual text of the law, plus multiple courts (Richmond, New York, and Nassau Counties, if I remember correctly) have all held that the signatures have to be notarized. I guess every single trial court in the state has to make such a ruling before these guys will just hire a notary… (or have a lawyer, doctor, or dentist make an affirmation without notarization).

    2. well, I used the detailed written template, and any other writing found in this website. Unfortunately, this did not help as the NOL was not dismissed. It appears my appeal was over looked by still noting the fact I was driving too fast in a school zone.

      not sure what to do now. any advice?

  22. In reading the VTL 1180-b (https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/VAT/1180-B), this ticketing system appears to be a demonstration program is a financial mechanism masking itself as an accident reduction program. This City is required to report to the NYS Senate each June statistics and cost effectiveness related to the use of manual on uniform traffic control devices (MUTCD’s) within school zones. VTL 1180-b (n) requires the City to provide a report that includes the number of violations issued, the cost of the program, and the amount of money collected by the program.

    While I fully support cautious driving in areas where pedestrians, especially children may be present, I resent the City using this as a financial tool for citizens who have not otherwise created or caused any hazardous or unsafe driving condition. That said, it seems to me the program will fall flat if people simply dispute the notices and refuse to pay the liability. The law allows for them charge only $50 plus a potential $25 fee for late payment but beyond that I don’t see how else they can penalize you unless they are allowed to report unpaid liabilities to the DMV who can then restrict renewal of a drivers license or vehicle registration.

    1. Fair points. It is absolutely a revenue play. I will warn that they do have recourse if you fail to pay them: they will first send the case to collections, then put a boot on your car. They also aggregate your outstanding parking tickets with these camera tickets to make it easier to reach the minimum amount – $250 or $350 – to justify the boot. There is an extra special fee to take the boot off, which more than doubles the cost of the tickets.

  23. Thank you Mr. Peacock for this app. I’m not sure if this has been brought up yet but there is a glitch with the signature box where it writes much higher than where your actually writing. This happened both on the computer with the mouse and on the phone.

    Besides the defense you provided I also added a second defense that, if successful, some other drivers can try and use. On the CameraLog.pdf file that you can download pertaining to your own case, the checkbox at the bottom that says “Signs were Posted” was unchecked. I stated that the Notice was defective as it said “Posted Speed 25”. I’m hoping if one defense doesn’t work, the other will.

    Between increasing the number of cameras, enlarging the radius from the school, and decreasing speed limits to an unreasonable limit on most streets, it is very obvious what the city is trying to do. This is not about protecting pedestrians or reducing accidents. This is a blatant cash grab from some of the most vulnerable New Yorkers. The larger radius of .25 mile makes it so that they are able to place a camera virtually anywhere in NYC (except maybe the middle of the Hudson River) and it fall within the radius of any given school. The lowered limits across NYC make it so that it is much more likely that you will be driving over the limit. And the increase in cameras is so rapid that you may never know which street now has one that didn’t have one yesterday. To be fair, I do believe 25 mph is fair and reasonable on most streets, especially one lane, one way streets and some 2 way, 2 lane streets. But it is highly unreasonable to expect the same on a street like Queens Blvd where some sections have up to 8 lanes, 4 in each direction. If the purpose is to protect “school zones”, than why are they placing the cameras on large thoroughfares and not on the immediate blocks around an actual school. The answer is because no one is actually speeding near the schools because most are located on single lane residential streets where any prudent driver would be driving slowly anyway. An imprudent driver would disregard the speed limit regardless of the presence of the camera so this point is moot. I will update you when I receive the response. Thanks.

  24. Hey, it worked, can’t find my ticket after appeal using this argument. Also, note that they almost never check that there is proper signage present. So not only is the tech un notarized, they don’t bother to check the box that signage is present. This was my first argument and they found me guilty. I appealed and included the unnotarized argument and sineage and it got dismissed.
    Thanks,

  25. I apologize for not getting back to everyone… My case was dismissed via the template…. They didn’t really give a reason. They just said I had submitted adequate proof.

  26. On to appeals! Clearly ignoring the August 2020 decision
    The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone. Respondent testifies that the summons fails to establish a prima facie violation. This is not a valid defense. The summons is prima facie evidence of a violation and respondent fails to rebut the violation as charged. Respondent does not offer any valid defense on the merits that would warrant dismissal of the summons. Respondent’s other defenses are also invalid. Respondent testifies that the summons should be dismissed as the technician’s certificate was not notarized. The technician’s signature need not be notarized. In addition, the technician is authorized by statute to sign the certificate as an authorized person. Furthermore, the cases to which respondent cites to are not controlling. Respondent also argues that the laws are state laws and applies to different municipalities. Respondent should apprise themself of the home rule law. The camera captured respondent’s vehicle driving 37 MPH in a 25 MPH school zone and this is a violation. Summons sustained.

  27. Received a violation for speeding in a school zone on 5/14/21. Reviewed the evidence provided by the ticket. I cited the case regarding the notarization requirement and received this response. “Respondent’s claim regarding the notarization of the Technician Certificate is a valid defense. NOL is dismissed”. Thanks for your blog info and I owe you a drink .

    1. You made my day! Glad to see another success. No drink needed, but if you have a couple seconds to give me a shout-out on Google, I’d love it:

      Peacock QDROs & Estate Planning: New York & New Jersey Wills, Trusts & Retirement Division Lawyer would love your feedback. Post a review to our profile.
      https://g.page/r/Cc0MkVlv3W8tEAo/review

  28. Unfortunately, this argument didn’t work for me either. The judge replied:

    “The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone. Respondent testifies that the Technician Certificate is without probative value because it was neither sworn to nor affirmed before a notary public or other authorized individual, and that the Supreme Court of New York has ruled that non-notarized certificates are “legally insufficient.” This is not persuasive. The technician’s certificate was affirmed under penalty of perjury and was properly signed. Pursuant to VTL sec. 1111-b(d), the technician’s certificates and video are prima facie evidence of the violation. Respondent provides no defense on the merits. NOL sustained.”

  29. AWESOME! It worked for me, ticket is dismissed. this is is brooklyn.

    I think this is really hit or miss depending on the mood of the judge who reviews the case. hey, it doesn’t cost anything to try.

    Great thanks

  30. Hello, this is some great information on this page. I see there is a mutual…. “dislike” towards deblasio and his never-ending bike lanes and speed cameras. If some of you have not heard, the speed limit on some streets were recently lowered:
    https://oana-ny.org/news/speed-limit-lowered-on-astoria-blvd/#:~:text=Our%20neighborhood%20is%20affected.,30%20MPH%20to%2025%20MPH.

    This also came with the addition of MORE “school zone” cameras. I believe they are starting to truly reach with the limits and requirements for these cameras.
    There was one placed on Astoria Blvd between the 108st and 110st (almost on the intersection of 110st).

    This is the coordinates to the camera:
    40.760238, -73.860263

    I’m not sure if this violates the requirements that state:

    “A photo speed violation monitoring system shall not be installed or operated on a controlled-access highway exit ramp or within three hundred feet along a highway that continues from the end of a controlled-access highway exit ramp.”

    If you pull up the coordinates on Google Maps you can see that it is EXTREMELY close to highway entrance(s) (Whitestone Expressway, Grand Central Parkway). Now, I recall that last year (during the quarantine when schools were closed) I got another speed trap ticket and did some research on why the hell cameras were even running and seeing something about speed cameras and speed limits being camera enforced within 500 feet of a highway entrance/exit, not sure if that has changed in the last year since I am now reading it is 300 feet, which regardless the camera is within 300 feet of the intersection for the on/off-ramps for the highways.

    I am mainly looking for some guidance/ clarifications on what the actual *updated* restrictions/limitations/requirements for these cameras are, and if there is a possibility of getting that camera taken down.
    Of course the big concern over this is that as I was driving down this street trying to catch the green light (because you only have 8 seconds to make the green light from the previous intersection (another kind of trap, if you ask me)) I saw a flash go off and I was the only vehicle on the road.

    I cannot wait for an actual class action lawsuit to happen and have the city refund EVERYONE for these trap tickets! It seems that all the city did during quarantine was put up more cameras instead of making these physical roads safer/better.
    Anyways, I appreciate any help/feedback anyone might have, and Thank you William for putting in the effort for this website/app!!!!

    1. Hello Brand and greetings. I got a speed camera ticket right there too. It says
      EB ASTORIA BLVD @ 110 ST
      Issue date 07/08/2021 and Violation date 06/302021
      I looked on Google Maps and did not see ant schools nearby except for 2 daycare ones several blocks away.
      Is this a school zone?

  31. Worked for me (June 2021). Decision reads: The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone. Respondent’s claim that the notice of liability is defective is persuasive because Agency records show the technician’s certificate is not properly notarized.
    Not guilty.

  32. Denied on 2 separate tickets 2 different people.
    Any idea on how to appeal? Can’t attach the law pdf to that one.

  33. Sorry I forgot to paste the “judgement” looks like new bull-crap????
    “The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone. Respondent testifies that the technician’s certificate was not sworn to or affirmed by a notary public or other authorized official, and that the Supreme Court of New York has ruled that non-notarized certificates are “legally insufficient.” This is not persuasive. The technician’s certificate was affirmed under penalty of perjury and was properly signed. Pursuant to VTL sec. 1111-b(d), the technician’s certificates and video are
    prima facie evidence of the violation. Respondent provides no defense on the merits. NOL sustained.”

  34. OMG IT WORKED!!!!!!! speeding ticket 7/6/21 not guilty 7/17/21 thank you so much i hope everyone uses this template!

  35. This worked for my ticket as well! Ticket was for 6/25/21 and received not guilty decision on 7/17/21. “Respondent’s claim that the notice of violation is defective is supported by persuasive evidence.”

    Thank you so much for this!

  36. Thanks for your insights and ideas. I was just going to pay, but your approach made me happy, so I took your letter, fiddled with it and just submitted a dispute by internet. If you’d like to see my letter, I’d be happy to send it to you to use as you see fit. I think there’s a pretty persuasive statement that you either did not make or perhaps I missed it. The point is this: “The Certificate purports to be signed by a Rosa Dutan, who claims to be “employed by the New York City Department of Transportation (“Department”) as a technician for the School Zone Camera Unit Monitoring Program conducted pursuant to New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law (“VTL”) section 1180-b.” Ms. Dutan’s statement claims to be “affirmed under penalty of perjury.” However, Ms. Dutan’s “signature” on the Certificate is obviously a machine-generated signature. There is no evidence or indication that Ms. Dutan is even a real person. But most importantly, the affirmation of Ms. Dutan was not “administered” by a notary public, or by anyone else. Even if Ms. Dutan is a notary public (which is not alleged by the Certificate), she could not administer her own oath. In addition, the format of the certificate does not comport with the technical requirements of a jurat, which would have to be signed in any event by a notary or an authorized witness. In this case, it appears that only Rose Dutan, and no one else, took her own affirmation. ”

    Anyway, thanks, you’re a good guy for doing this. – Jack M. Platt, Esq.

    1. Thank you, Jack for sharing your dispute. Did your dispute result in a dismissal? Also, may I peruse your email? Thanks so much! Pete

  37. Hi, I’d like to give your app/cut paste argument a try, but the red button on this blog post leads to a “page does not exist” message.

    Any way to rectify?

    Thanks!

  38. Just received my appeal decision. I actually appeared in person in front of the appeal board of three. I used all of your arguments and added my own regarding the fact that the Technician’s printed name did not match her signature. The signature was not difficult to read. It was very clear — but it wan NOT the printed name. I would have thought this would work in my initial challenge. It didn’t. Then, I was sure that the addition of your argument about notarization would do the trick — as I argued that the discrepancy between the signature and printed name could have been overcome with notarization, which is indeed required by law. Well….the panel listened, but when I started on the notary argument, one of the judges said, “Oh yes, we’ve heard that.” The way he said it made me think he was not a fan. The decision was brief: “THE APPEAL BOARD FINDS NO ERROR OF FACT OR LAW. DECISION AFFIRMED.” Well, I tried. And I appreciate your help. It is quite frustrating that the very same argument got reversals from some judges. I guess I drew the short straw.

  39. I wrote last week saying that I had used your approach, but tinkered with it a bit. I sent you the text of my letter. I just received the determination on my ticket: “Violation Decision: The Respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone. Respondent’s claim that the notice of liability is defective because it does not have a properly notarized technician’s certificate is persuasive evidence. Not Guilty.”

    Thank you, nice job.

    Jack

  40. Received quick negative replies from the judge and appeals board. This was a Manhattan case. My next step is go bring an Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court. Have to decide whether I want to invest in the $210 filing fee to fight a $50 ticket.

    1. Yeah, that’s their gambit -nobody will pay that much to fight a $50 ticket, right?

      Surprised that you struck out in Manhattan. That’s where the Street case was decided.

  41. Is there a chance that contesting the $50 fine with “There are no points associated with this notice”, will cause the court to turn around and add points along with the fine(increase or not). I might be willing to pay the $50 fine, but do not wish to do anything that will add points to my DL or result in increase in Insurance premium.

  42. I got two tickets on same day at different location for speeding at school zone.
    I disputed both but unfortunately they were upheld.

    The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone. Claim that the City
    has failed to establish a prima facie case is without merit. All legal requirements were met in the issuance of this violation. Summons
    upheld.

  43. Used the recommended language, was not successful. Thomas Adinolfi was the ALJ. I’m considering filing an ethics complaint with New York State for violating NYS Code of Judicial Conduct Section 100.1 “A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary” and New York City for violating NYC Rules Judicial Rules of Conduct Section 103. A City administrative law judge shall perform his or her judicial duties impartially and diligently.

    “The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limit in a school speed zone. Respondent’s claim that the Notice of Violation is defective because the technician’s certificate is not in proper form is rejected. No copes of any of the noted decisions are presented. This is not a persuasive defense. Service of the Notice of Liability complies with the requirements for VTL 1180-b. There is no persuasive evidence to establish the vehicle was not traveling in excess of the allowable speed when it passed through the enforcement zone. The opinion cited by Justice Rakower notes it is limited to the situation specifically before the court when the decision was rendered. No decision is presented which establish a similar decision was reached in an action considering the section of law under which this notice is issued. Violation upheld.

  44. I used your argument as-is, including upload of the previous case as evidence, and my ticket was dismissed. Thank you so much!

  45. I received a Speeding camera ticket. I copied and pasted your defense into why The speeding camera ticket should be dismissed and I lost. I Even attached the court order on your site. This was the decision “Violation Decisions: GENERAL DENIAL/EVID NOT CREDIBLE Violation Number: 4747020767
    The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone. Respondent states that the certification was not proper and invoked the Decision rendered in Monroe St. versus City of New York. This is not a persuasive defense as the decision applies only to NOL 5105637495. Summons sustained.”

    1. Don’t feel bad. I received a similar response yesterday. I am going to do the free appeal for now, highlighting the same arguments and pointing out the arbitrary and capricious nature of the decisions coming out of their office using the dozens of emails and comments I’ve received from people who have used this successfully, as well as the many reports of people who have not been so lucky (including myself on this latest ticket).

  46. Thanks William for the app. However, my recent attempt was rejected. I can appeal but short of starting or joining a class action suit, the only alternative is to try and override the decision of the dept of finance through small claims court. Does that make any sense ?

  47. If you try to dispute on the app it says there are more than 2000 characters< Am I doing something wrong?

    1. I’m having the same issue – 2000 character limit. The generated text which i tried to copy and paste is more than 5000 characters long.

      1. You can try cutting it down some. 🙂 Us lawyers aren’t known for our brevity. I will try to edit it down myself at some point.

  48. does anyone have any ideas as to how to answer why I didnt answer in time. My summons is in judgement and I need an explanation.

  49. Used the argument, edited somewhat, and added that the Camera Log Report for the violation is missing the confirmation that the proper signs were posted in the location of the camera.

    Got this back:

    The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone. Respondent testified the notice of violation is defective and should be dismissed because the technician’s certificiate has not been notarized. Respondent’s testimony was not persuasive because the technician’s certificate is not defective and is in proper form.

    Was signed by “ALJ Name: Carl P. Kanev”.

    Guess there’s no point on appealing, if that went nowhere…

    Thanks anyway, wish there was another way to win this.

    1. Might be worth the first free appeal. I’ve had a couple get knocked out that way. (You can appeal the admin judge’s decision once and more DMV paper pushers review it. A second appeal requires a court filing, which is $$$)

  50. Hi
    I am following your instructions to appeal the camera tickets-
    unfortunately – Your “cut and paste generator” is not showing up
    What am I doing wrong? – Can you possibly email it to me?
    Thank you
    Terry

  51. I received two speeding camera tickets within 2 minutes.
    I cannot download your application. .
    Can you lead me to the app?

    1. Hey Leo. The app sometimes is down for maintenance and/or the server is busy. Please try again a few hours later. (I’m working on building it on a new platform – the one I used is not holding up.)

  52. Thank you so much – It worked for me – I have not received an official email stating ticket has been dismissed – however, when I log onto nyc.gov/finance and put in my violation number, it states “violation entered has already been fully paid or otherwise satisfied” – You are wonderful for sharing this defense!

  53. Hi William – I just posted my email – please be kind and remove my last name from my post. again, thank you very much

  54. Thank you again for sharing your expertise – I posted earlier – saying I had not received the official email saying my ticket was dismissed, but on the nyc.gov/finance website – it did say the violation was “otherwise satisfied”. I appealed the ticket using your defense on November 23rd, and I just received the email today saying it was dismissed – only 6 days later. This is was the ruling….
    “The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone. The Notice of Violation is dismissed as being technically insufficient, as to the lack of adequate affirmation with respect to the “Technician Certificate” contained therein. Dismissed.”
    Thank you so very much

  55. I used your generated defense last week to a ticket I received and in no time ( 1 week) receive the following response.
    “The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone. Respondent testifies that the summons fails to establish a prima facie violation. This is not a valid defense. The summons is prima facie evidence of a violation and respondent fails to rebut the violation as charged. Respondent does not offer any valid defense on the merits that would warrant dismissal of the summons. Respondent’s other defenses are also invalid. Respondent testifies that the summons should be dismissed as the technician’s certificate was not notarized. The technician’s signature need not be notarized. In addition, the technician is authorized by statute to sign the certificate as an authorized person. Furthermore, the cases to which respondent cites to are not controlling. Respondent also argues that the laws are state laws and applies to different municipalities. Respondent should apprise themself of the home rule law. The camera captured respondent’s vehicle driving 39 MPH in a 25 MPH school zone and this is a violation. Summons sustained.”
    I’m not sure appealing is worth my time, but since it doesn’t cost anything to appeal I probably will.

    1. Why not? It’s free to appeal, other than your time. 🙂 I forgot to appeal my last one. Won a couple before that.

  56. First, thank you.
    Second, if you set up a donation campaign on GOFUNDME or another (preferably another like https://allfundit.com/), I am certain that we can crowdsource enough money to make this great battle be worth your (or any qualified attorney fro that matter) time to fight this in the courts as far as it can go.

    1. There is supposedly a class action/appeal pending on the case cited above – the Street case – but I haven’t heard any updates and when I checked the docket a couple months ago, nothing had been filed on it in a while. I’m going to presume “COVID delays.”

    2. With that being said, I’m considering launching a GoFundMe/AllFundIt/whatever to fund similar projects like this – an intern built a prototype free estate planner for New Yorkers, I’d like to revise this ticket machine with additional defenses and maybe an appeals function. But the platform I used to build the free ticket machine was acquired by another company and may not be feasible/economical in the near future as well, so I may have migrate this whole project elsewhere … lots to figure out for 2022!

  57. I have read thru all the posts and think I have a new one for you. Back in 2017 my husband received 2 different camera violations for speeding in a school zone. The license plate had the same numbers/ letters that my husband had prior to 2002 with one exception. It had a Yankee logo and my husband did not. Sent it several documents proving this violation was not my husbands. Even sent in a letter from Albany DMV Call Center stating that plate had been reissued to another NYS resident in 2008. Received back dismissal of both violations due to sufficient evidence. Albany also stated any information as to the vehicle it was tied to before 2008 has been has been purged from their records. This took up a lot of time and effort on our part. Now we are in 2021. My husband sadly passed away in 2019 and what do I get in the mail about 2 weeks ago? Two more camera speeding in a school zone violations. Same van, same license plate. I called 311 and got a very nice lady who said if I don’t dispute it the violations will keep coming with more money added. I told her I am done with this. I proved to them back in 2017 that it wasn’t my husband’s violation. I am not doing it again. She was nice enough to send an email message on my behalf stating what I just wrote here. Now I am dealing with someone from the finance dept. He asked that I send him the proof I originally sent it, which I did, but he says I also have to schedule a hearing which I refuse to do. I read somewhere back in 2017 that they can come and seize your assets and then possibly jail time. My question is, can they really do that? There is no car with that license plate but I do still have another car that my husband bought in 2013 with completely different plates and have not transferred the title yet.

    1. Oh my God. That pisses me off – pardon my language. Illegal camera tickets are bad enough, but now they’re harassing widows? My condolences and I hope the city gets its head on straight soon.

      I would recommend complying with their requests for documentation, as annoying as it may be. I doubt (but cannot guarantee) that they’d go so far as jail time, but they love to threaten suspension of your license, booting your cars, or reporting this stuff to collections, all of which are bigger headaches. Plus they never waive late fees or penalties for unpaid tickets, so if you don’t address it proactively, you may end up with an even bigger bill.

      1. I have been meaning to update you. I have a stubborn streak and just could not comply with their requests for more documentation. I replied in an email saying I would not send in any more documentation since I had already done that years prior and my husband was acquitted of all violations. Therefore they already have all they need. Much to my surprise I received two separate letters informing me the violations were dismissed, not guilty due to the letter from the DMV which I sent the last time. From the sound of it that is the only proof they needed. I am not confident that this won’t happen again in the future. Let’s hope they finally corrected their records.

  58. Thanks for letting me know about this. Before I saw your page and the information, I not only noticed the absence of the notary seal; I also saw that the technician’s signature’s surname didn’t look like that of the one that affirmed it–that is, the signature of the last name looked completely different than the one of the printed name. I uploaded a photo showing the technician’s certificate and mentioned both this and the NY State ruling. Let’s hope this works out for the best…being a NYC resident, unfortunately it hasn’t since DeBozo has been mayor.

    1. DeBozo is the worst. I have some hope for the new guy, but I doubt anyone will ever end the camera program – too many millions in revenue to shut it down unless/until a court intervenes. So far, the only defense that I’ve seen consistently work (and even then, not 100%) is the one I provided in the app – the “they forgot to notarize it” argument – and even that is a quick fix. (Hire lawyers to process the tickets – no notary required.)

  59. Just put in 2 school zone tickets in NYC using your letter, will hopefully update soon.
    Can I use the letter and argument for the Nassau county Red light camera ticket?

    any reason the same defense should not work in Nassau?

    1. It’s worth a shot! I think one of the cases I cited was out of Nassau, actually. And the law is the same statewide, so if it’s not notarized, it should be invalid no matter where in NY it happened.

      1. there is no certificate at all on the nassau ticket,
        it was for turning on red light without stopping fully before turn.

      2. The judge denied both my tickets saying the cited case was specific and can not apply to all cases.

        Is there an appeal letter or do I just us the same argument in appeal?

        can I do the appeal online or just by mail?

        1. Lost both? Been there. There’s usually instructions for appealing included with the rejection – or check Nassau’s website. Not sure on whether they let you appeal online or just by mail … I’m in Queens and haven’t gotten a Nassau ticket yet (knock on wood).

          1. both tickets were in NYC and were ruled on by the same judge few minutes apart. the appeal seems to be via mail only.

            I have a turn on red camera ticket in nassua that I am fighting using same arguments

          2. Nassau county notice I got for Red light did not have any technician certificate or statement, spoke with the court clerk and said in nassau county we will give you that statement when you come in to court.
            is there a law that has to be on the notice?
            can they withhold the evidence till the court date?
            I ask specifically for the evidence and she said Nassau traffic curt does not work like that.

            NYVTL § 1111-b (d) (Owner liability for failure of operator to comply with traffic-control indications.)

            “(d) A certificate, sworn to or affirmed by a technician employed by

            Nassau county in which the charged violation occurred, or a facsimile

            thereof, based upon inspection of photographs, microphotographs,

            videotape or other recorded images produced by a traffic-control signal

            photo violation-monitoring system, shall be prima facie evidence of the

            facts contained therein.”

  60. Didn’t quite work for my case. The Judge rejected my claim and here is the response “The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone. Respondent states the
    City has failed to establish a prima facie case, that the Technician Certificate was without probative value and should be disregarded, that the technician’s certificate was supported by an inadequate statement masquerading as an affirmation and that this Notice ofLiability is invalid. Respondent submits a NYS Supreme Court case decision and submits citations for other court cases. On review of this entire record, including the Notice of Liability/Certificate Charging the Liability, the Reviewer Certificate, the Violation Evidence Report, the Daily Set Up Log and the Radar Sensor Calibration Verification Certificate of Calibration, it is not persuasive respondent was not served with the proper documents or that the documents are insufficient or that was not in violation as cited. Accordingly, the
    summons is sustained.”

    1. Bummer! Consider trying the free appeal. i’m working on an appeal generator now based on the uneven enforcement of these tickets – I personally have had the same argument accepted and rejected by different people at the DMV. The term for that is “arbitrary and capricious“ it is grounds for challenging the rule itself.

      but until that is ready, even an appeal based on the exact same argument might win. I’ve had a couple knocked out that way.

      Pardon any typos – voice typing. Good luck!

        1. (DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE – JUST A FRIENDLY CONVERSATION)
          6th Amendment: I’ve seen this argument fail a number of times in other areas of the country. The general view seems to be that because these are civil administrative penalties, not criminal punishments, that criminal protections like the Sixth Amendment don’t apply. What’s the difference between civil penalty and criminal? Good question. 🙂

          Your appeal question: yes. I’m working on an appeal argument generator that will have citations to two of my own tickets, personally, along with a sworn affidavit (I’m a lawyer – no notary required) that the same argument was used in both, with differing outcomes, and that this whole process is arbitrary and capricious. If you have multiple tickets, some won and some lost, cite those instead. I’m trying to get the updated ticket fighter and appeal generator live, but (a) I don’t charge for it so paid work and my dad duties come first and (b) the software I used for this free tool was sold to a big corporate conglomerate and I’m not sure how much longer it’ll be available – so I need to look at migrating it to a new platform as well.

          More updates to come soon!

          1. I did mention the arbitrary and capricious in my appeal but did not have a case number to present as evidence. if you don’t mind sharing your case numbers I will add them to my letter before mailing it.
            it seems like it can only be mailed.

      1. do I have to cite any ticketes that were dismissed based on this to call the process arbitrary and capricious in my appeal ?

  61. This worked for me! I did tweaked a little bit of it and added insufficient evidence of daily set up log and inaccuracy of calibration. They responded, ” Respondent’s claim that the notice of violation is defective is persuasive.” Thank you for sharing.

  62. OMG – Thanks so much!

    “The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone. Respondent’s claim
    that the technician’s certificate is not notarized is a valid defense. Summons dismissed.”

  63. Hi,
    Thank you so much for sharing this, I have used your tool to dispute a NYC speed camera ticket I received recently and am currently waiting to get the result.
    One question though, in the event that the ticket is upheld, how can I fight it further (Other than filing a lawsuit, since I can’t afford that)? I saw in another comment you mentioned something about an appeal, how would I go about making an appeal and what would I say in my appeal? Do you possibly have a template I should use for my appeal if needed, or should my appeal say the same thing as I said in my dispute? I’m confused about this and would greatly appreciate some information about what to do for the appeal process in the event my dispute is denied.

    Thanks again!

  64. 0/2. How is that appeals generator coming? I don’t think the ruling here is legally sound. Thoughts?

    “The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone. Respondent claims the summons must be dismissed because the technician’s report is not notarized. Respondent’s claim is rejected because the Supreme Court case upon which respondent’s claim is based was brought, as per the caption, as a class action case, and the Court therein specifically denied class action status to it, restricting its decision to the individual case before it. Guilty.”

    “The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone. Respondent’s claims are not persuasive, as VTL 1180-b(d) specifically allows a certificate, or a facsimile of same, to be sworn to or affirmed by a technician, and an affirmation need not be notarized. In addition, the referenced Decision and Order by Justice Rakower limited the ruling to that case. Therefore, it has no application here. Respondent submitted no defense to the underlying violation. The Notice of Liability is sustained.”

  65. Got a ticket for going 36 in a 25 in a school zone from a camera in Brooklyn. Tried to fight with your tool. Just got the decision and unfortunately it failed. Here is the decision they gave me:
    “The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone. Respondent cites to the decision of Justice Eileen Rakower In The Matter Of Monroe Street v. The City Of New York, et als Index no. 158466/2019 to claim that the speed cam violations issued by New York City and its various agencies are supported by improper certifications and invalid.
    Examination of Justice Rakower’s decision reveals she limited its effect to the parties and facts before her and specifically did not grant class status to all speed cam defendants. Respondent mistakenly relies on this decision as a defense.”
    I’m glad that the due date for the payment is extended for another 30 days at least. Please let me know if you have any other tips to try and get this dismissed.

  66. I used your Form and got the ticket Dismissed thank you so much!!
    it was a school zone speeding ticket 11 over posted limit

  67. Thank you for the great app. I figured it was worth a shot and my defense was denied and the ticket was upheld. I’m debating whether or not I should appeal. I have another ticket so I will try again. For reference, both tickets are in Queens and one has already been upheld. Will update if anything changes.

  68. Thank you for the great app. I figured it was worth a shot and my defense was denied and the ticket was upheld. I’m debating whether or not I should appeal. I have another ticket so I will try again. For reference, both tickets are in Queens and one has already been upheld. Will update if anything changes.

  69. here is the response I got:

    The respondent has been charged with failing to comply with the maximum speed limits in a school speed zone. The Respondent claims that the Technician Certificate in the Notice of Liability does not conform to the requirements under the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law as it relates to Article 78 proceeding in the Matter of the application of Monroe Street dated 2019 regarding a Notice of Liability for a red light camera. The case concluded and ordered that the Petition is granted only to the extent that the Notice of Liability issued to the Plaintiff-Petitioner Monroe Street on March 18, 2019 is vacated and, it is further ordered that the portion of the motion seeking class
    certification is denied. Further, a most recent Article 78 decision, Matter of Monroe Street v. City of New York, decided on 2/15/2022, the First Department ruled that the technician’s certificate for red light camera violations does not require notarizations. Therefore, per NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law, the city of NY is authorized to establish a speed camera program imposing monetary liability on the owner of the vehicle for failure of an operator thereof to comply with posted maximum speed limits in a school zone. Operators of photo speed violation monitoring systems shall have completed training in the procedures for setting up, testing and operating such systems.
    A review of agency records reveals that the certificate review report indicates that the camera technician certified a fully operating school zone camera when the Notice of Liability was issued and the signed technician certificate affirmed under penalty of perjury is included in the Notice of Liability issued. Guilty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.