In People v Olsen, 22 N.Y.2d 230 [1968] the lay witness testified that the speed of an automobile was 55 miles per hour in a 30-mile-per-hour zone. The Court observed that because the lay opinion was so far greater than the legal speed limit, the evidence was sufficient. The Court opined that if the testimony of the lay witness had been that the speed was 35 miles per hour the evidence may not have been legally sufficient because of its closeness to the legal limit (id. at 232). In other words, the closer the lay opinion as to distance is to the legal requirement the less sufficient the evidence is to establish a prima facie case. The Court held that the witness must meet two requirements before the testimony will be held sufficient. First, the witness must demonstrate some experience in observing the rate of moving objects, or other equally satisfactory basis for the opinion. Second, the Court explained, consideration must be given to the nature of the variance between the subject's vehicle and the established speed limit. The Court explained: A police officer's estimate that a defendant was traveling at 50 to 55 miles per hour in a 30-mile-an-hour zone should be sufficient to sustain a conviction for speeding. On the other hand, his testimony, absent mechanical corroboration, that a vehicle was proceeding at 35 or 40 miles per hour in the same zone might for obvious reasons be insufficient, since, it must be assumed that only a mechanical device could detect such a slight variance with sufficient accuracy to satisfy the burden necessary to sustain a conviction. (Id., 22 N.Y.2d at 232).