Benjamin Goldman Law Office Wins Appeal, Which Overturns Conviction in Verona Town Court

Our client was stopped for allegedly speeding. The trooper decided to give our client a “roadside reduction”. Instead of issuing a ticket for speeding, the trooper issued a ticket for failing to use flashers. This has less points than a speeding ticket and is treated less seriously by insurance companies. However, there are still two points and our client wanted to dispute the ticket.

The defendant retained the Benjamin Goldman Law Office, and we tried to negotiate the charge down to a parking ticket. However, the district attorney’s office refused to negotiate this ticket, claiming it was already reduced roadside.

The attorneys at the Benjamin Goldman Law Office filed motions to dismiss on several grounds in the Verona Town Court, all of which were denied (not unexpectedly). The case subsequently went to trial where our client was found guilty (not unexpectedly).

We then filed an appeal in the Oneida County Court arguing that the conviction should be overturned based on the original motions filed in Verona Town Court and due to legal errors that occurred during the trial.

Prosecutor Then Joins Our Appeal

Our appeal was so strong that the assistant district attorney agreed that the conviction should be overturned. The new assistant district attorney focused on one part of the appeal – that of the facial insufficiency of the supporting deposition.

Oneida County Court Reverses Conviction After Prosecutor Concedes That the Traffic Ticket Was Facially Insufficient

Facial insufficiency means the charging instruments themselves — the simplified traffic information — did not contain enough factual allegations on its face to notify the defendant of the specific conduct she was charged with violating. A legally defective charging instrument cannot support a conviction, no matter the underlying facts. Here, the People reviewed our appellate submission and conceded that the Supporting Deposition was facially insufficient. The Oneida County Court agreed: the conviction was reversed, the ticket dismissed outright, and the fine and surcharge already paid were remitted back to our client. All remaining arguments on appeal were rendered moot.

Key Facts (At a Glance)

• Appellate court: Oneida City Court
• Appellate Court Judge: Hon. Robert L. Bauer
• Lower Court Judges: Hon. Gregory Iannello Jr.
• Lower Court Prosecutor: ADA Jennifer M. Scholl
• Lower court: Verona Town Court, Oneida County
• Original conviction: February 2025 — after a trial in Verona Town Court
• Original charge: VTL §1163(e) — Failure to Use Four-Way Flashers
• Case index: Oneida County Court No. SMZ-70713-25-001; Verona Docket No. 24080060
• Prosecution response: People conceded Grounds: Underlying simplified traffic information was facially insufficient to support the charge
• Grounds: Underlying simplified traffic information was facially insufficient to support the charge
• Result: Conviction reversed; ticket dismissed; fine and surcharge remitted to defendant
• Decision date: May 22, 2026
• Decision and Order: Read the Oneida County Court Order

Lesson of the Day

Even after a conviction at trial, a strong appellate challenge can undo the entire result — including recovering the fine already paid. Facial insufficiency is one of the most powerful tools available on appeal: if the ticket itself does not properly state what the defendant allegedly did, the conviction cannot stand. In our experience, the arguments that win an appeal are often ones that need to be identified and preserved early in the case — ideally before the trial ever begins. That is why having an experienced traffic ticket attorney involved from the outset matters so much. The trial is not the finish line.

Benjamin Goldman Law Office

Winning this appeal required knowing exactly what to look for in a trial record. Our attorneys identified the facial insufficiency of the supporting deposition — a technical but dispositive defect — and built the appellate brief around it precisely because that was the argument the county court would find hardest to ignore. That kind of issue identification comes from years of handling New York traffic cases at every level: in the justice courts, at trial, and on appeal. We knew the argument was right before we filed it. The prosecution's concession confirmed it.

If your traffic case was tried in a New York justice court and you are not satisfied with the verdict, contact us. We are experienced in handling appeals - we know what the county courts look for, and we would be happy to give you a direct assessment of whether your case supports a viable appeal.

Fight your Ticket CALL NOW FIGHT YOUR TICKET NOW