In People v. Cucinello (183 Misc 2d 50), the Appellate Term ruled that a conviction should be reversed where the defendant did not wear the shoulder harness safety belt in conjunction with the lap safety belt. The person did not use the shoulder harness because it crossed his front too high to be comfortable. The court concluded, after noting that the 1992 vehicle "was equipped with lap and shoulder belts which were not one piece," "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' . 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." ( People v. Cucinello, supra, at 51.) In Cucinello (183 Misc 2d 50, supra), the vehicle had a shoulder harness and a "lap" belt each of which had to be connected separately. The court ruled the use of the lap belt alone without also connecting the shoulder harness as well complied with the statutory mandate that the passenger be restrained by a "safety belt." The court's ruling clearly stated the shoulder harness and the "lap" belt qualified as safety belts leaving it to the passenger to use either one to comply with Vehicle and Traffic Law 1229-c (3) to use a safety belt not "belts."