185 Misc. 2d 765 - People v. Widrick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The issue is not the particular format used by a motor vehicle manufacturer to comply with New York Law but, rather, the issue is whether a citizen riding in the vehicle must use (in these cases) the shoulder harness safety belt in conjunction with the seat (lap) safety belt. The right to decide whether to use the shoulder harness safety belt by the Defendants in this case is found in the wording of the statute and not in the design model of the safety belt restraints used in a particular motor vehicle. In these cases the credible evidence shows that all the Defendants w^ere wearing the seat safety belt (lap belt) connected as required. Two Defendants had elected to use the shoulder harness safety belt in a fashion that wms comfortable for them by placing it under their arm and two defendants elected not to use the shoulder harness safety belt by putting it behind their shoulders. These practices of the Defendants reflect the same choice many people make because the “one size fits all” shoulder harness strap based on a person’s physical characteristics either crosses over the neck, throat, cheek and/or under the chin or fits so snugly that it is too tight to be comfortable or so loosely that the shoulder harness safety belt hangs free, leaving a gap between the person and the shoulder strap. The normal reaction of an American citizen is to relieve the discomfort of the •shoulder harness safety belt strap by crossing it under’ the arm, holding it away with the hand or placing ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Ribbel

2. “The question of whether defendant was guilty of violating the subject provision because her son was wearing a lap belt and leaving the shoulder harness unconnected, however, requires a careful perusal of the statutory language itself. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229—c(2) uses the term, “safety belt,” in the singular when it states, “No person shall operate a motor vehicle unless all front seat passengers under the age of sixteen are restrained by a safety belt" (emphasis added). While the term, “safety belt,” is not expressly defined in the statute, said term can refer to either “seat safety belts” or “shoulder harness safety belts” (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law '§ 383[4-a][5]; 15 NYCRR 49.2[b]). Inasmuch as defendant’s son was restrained by a safety belt, viz., a seat safety belt, defendant should not have been deemed in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-c.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Ribbel

3. “Since the clear wording of the statute refers to the singular belt and not the plural “belts,” a person who uses either the “seat safety belt” or “harness safety belt” would be in compliance with the statute. If the legislature and/or Commissioner expected both belts to be used together the statute and regulations could have been so worded to provide for that requirement.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Ribbel