People v. Johnson, 140 A.D.3d 978 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Johnson, 140 A.D.3d 978 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events (26 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Cilia-Aragon (Oswaldo) (nyappterm, 2026-02-11)
Treatment trajectory · 2016 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2016 2021 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cilia-Aragon (Oswaldo) (2×)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2026 · confidence medium
Defendant also exhibited signs of intoxication, including bloodshot, watery eyes, unsteadiness on his feet, and the strong smell of alcohol on his breath ( see People v Johnson , 140 AD3d 978, 979 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 931 [2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sanders (Kevin) (2×)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2025 · confidence medium
Defendant also exhibited signs of intoxication, including bloodshot and watery eyes, an odor of alcohol on his breath and he was unsteady on his feet ( see People v Johnson , 140 AD3d 978, 979 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 931 [2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gomez (Teodoro) (2×)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2025 · confidence medium
The testimony of the arresting officer that he arrived at the scene of a three car accident, observed defendant's watery eyes and slurred words; and that defendant admitted to him that he drove one of the vehicles and had been drinking, was sufficient to establish probable cause for defendant's arrest for driving while intoxicated ( see People v Johnson , 140 AD3d 978, 979 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 931 [2016]).
examined Cited as authority (rule) People v. Adames (Maximo) (3×)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2025 · confidence medium
The additional indicia of intoxication exhibited by defendant, including "reek[ing] heavily of alcohol" as he exited the vehicle, and stumbling and struggling to remain on his feet, provided probable cause for his arrest (<i>see People v Johnson</i>, 140 AD3d 978, 979 [2016], <i>lv denied </i> 28 NY3d 931 [2016]). </p> <p>We agree with defendant, however, that the variance between the accusatory instrument, [*2]the proof at trial, and the supplemental jury charge deprived him of fair notice of the charges upon which he was to be tried.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Miller (Darlene)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2021 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant's contention, the People established at a suppression hearing that there was probable cause to arrest her for driving while intoxicated ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]; People v Johnson , 140 AD3d 978, 979 [2016]; People v Kemper , 65 Misc 3d 150[A] , 2019 NY Slip Op 51855[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2019]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Riley (Shawn)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2020 · confidence medium
Here, the evidence of defendant's intoxication—i.e., the traffic violation; defendant's bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and the odor of alcohol on his breath; and the presence of a partially consumed bottle of Hennessy on the back seat of the car—objectively provided the officer with probable cause to arrest defendant for driving while impaired, if not intoxicated driving ( see People v Johnson , 140 AD3d 978, 979 [2016] ["Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony of the arresting officer that he observed the defendant in a visibly intoxicated condition, seated behind the wheel …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Kemper (Vera)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2019 · confidence medium
Probable cause for defendant's arrest was established by the arresting officers' testimony that when the vehicle was stopped at the checkpoint, defendant exhibited classic signs of intoxication, such as having watery, bloodshot eyes, a flushed face and the strong odor of alcohol on her breath ( see People v Johnson , 140 AD3d 978, 979 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 931 [2016]; People v Thomas, 68 AD3d 482 , 483 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 806 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bachstein
Fla. Monroe Cty. Ct. · 2016 · confidence medium
In consideration of the obligation to accord great deference to the fact-finder (Pe ople v Johnson, 140 AD3d 978, 979 [2d Dept 2016]), and of the evidence cited above, there can be little doubt that the factfinder “was justified in finding that guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt” (People v Oberlander, 94 AD3d 1459, 1459 [4th Dept 2012]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Alma (Nicholas)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
There was no allegation that defendant was observed at the wheel ( see People v Avery , 68 Misc 3d 135[A] , 2020 NY Slip Op 51093[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2020]; see also People v Johnson , 140 AD3d 978 [2016]), or that he admitted to driving the vehicle ( see People v Garcia , 49 Misc 3d 47 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Gregory Johnson, Appellant
2012-00948.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 15, 2016.
140 A.D.3d 978
Mastro, Sgroi, Duffy, Nelson.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Efman, J.), rendered January 10, 2012, convicting him of driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3), aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, and operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver license, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Kahn, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court properly denied that branch of the defend[*979] ant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials, made on the ground that the police officers did not have probable cause to arrest him for driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the testimony of the arresting officer that he observed the defendant in a visibly intoxicated condition, seated behind the wheel of the vehicle with the engine running and the transmission in drive, was sufficient to provide probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving while intoxicated (see People v Farnsworth, 134 AD3d 1302 [2015]; People v Bolta, 96 AD3d 773 [2012]). There is no requirement that a vehicle actually be in motion for it to be in operation (see People v Prescott, 95 NY2d 655 [2001]; People v Westcott, 84 AD3d 1510 [2011]).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of driving while intoxicated beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Prescott, 95 NY2d 655 [2001]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to that crime was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Mastro, J.P., Sgroi, Duffy and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.