People v. Ayala, 675 N.E.2d 846 (NY 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Ayala, 675 N.E.2d 846 (NY 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re Brown (nyappdiv, 2012-12-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Brown
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Although CPL 450.20 (8) permits the People, under certain circumstances, to appeal from an order suppressing evidence pursuant to CPL 710.20 (see CPL 450.20 [8]; People v Ayala, 89 NY2d 874, 875-876 [1996]), Justice Blumenfeld denied Perez’s motion to suppress his videotaped statement pursuant to that statute.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Brown
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Although CPL 450.20 (8) permits the People, under certain circumstances, to appeal from an order suppressing evidence pursuant to CPL 710.20 (see CPL 450.20 [8]; People v Ayala, 89 NY2d 874, 875-876 [1996]), Justice Blumenfeld denied Perez’s motion to suppress his videotaped statement pursuant to that statute.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Appellant,
v.
Reinaldo Ayala, Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 18, 1996.
675 N.E.2d 846
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney of Bronx County, Bronx (Stephen Muller and Joseph N. Ferdenzi of counsel), for appellant., Andrew C. Fine, New York City, Cynthia Colt and Daniel L. Greenberg for respondent.
Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick Concur in Memorandum.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Term should be reversed and the matter remitted to that court for consideration of the People’s appeal.

Defendant was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. The arresting officer testified at the suppression hearing that defendant agreed to take a breathalyzer test, after admitting to having had "a few beers.” The officer added that the test was administered approximately two and one-half hours after the arrest. Defendant had moved to suppress the results of the test on the ground that it was administered more than two hours after arrest. Criminal Court granted the motion. The Appellate Term dismissed the People’s appeal as not authorized, and a Judge of this Court granted the People leave to appeal.

The sole issue is whether a People’s appeal to an intermediate appellate court is authorized to challenge a trial court ruling suppressing the results of a consented-to chemical test. CPL 450.20 (8) provides an as-of-right appeal to the People from a criminal court "order suppressing evidence, entered before trial pursuant to section 710.20.” Subdivision (5) of CPL 710.20 authorizes suppression of results of chemical blood tests "administered in violation of the provisions of subdivision three of section eleven hundred ninety-four of the vehicle and traffic law, subdivision eight of section forty-nine-a of the navigation law or any other applicable law” (emphasis added).

Defendant urges a statutorily construed limitation only on the People’s right to appeal from certain orders granting suppression. We find the argument unpersuasive, because the plain language of CPL 710.20 (5) does not contain, import or justify any such one-sided appeal limitation. Since it permits suppression not only of court-ordered chemical tests, but also tests administered pursuant to "any other applicable law,” the[*876] People’s appeal options under CPL 450.20 (8) incorporate the whole of CPL 710.20. Thus, the restriction defendant would have this Court impose finds no support in the statutory language authorizing the People’s appeal.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.