People v. Griesbeck, 17 A.D.3d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Griesbeck, 17 A.D.3d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Torres (nycrimctkings, 2025-09-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Torres (2×)
Kings Criminal Ct. · 2025 · confidence medium
In contrast, an analysis of adherence to the provisions of VTL § 1194 (4) (a), which Defendant raises here, is instead a question of admissibility at trial (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195 [1]; Larry Cunningham, Practice Commentaries [McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195]; Griesbeck , 17 AD3d at 717).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Baker
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
In light of such charge permitting consideration of the improperly admitted evidence and the potential significance of that evidence, together with the fact that we cannot conclude from this record that the remaining evidence overwhelmingly established defendant’s guilt (cf. People v Donaldson, 46 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2007]; People v Swanston, 277 AD2d 600, 602 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 739 [2001]; People v White, 185 AD2d 460, 461 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 935 [1992]), a new trial is warranted on counts one and five (see People v Griesbeck, 17 AD3d 717, 717-718 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Butcher
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s contention, there was no need for the supervising physician to put aside her other duties to observe the phlebotomist perform the procedure (see People v Moser, 70 NY2d 476, 478 [1987]; cf. People v Griesbeck, 17 AD3d 717, 717 [2005]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Robert Griesbeck
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 7, 2005.
17 A.D.3d 717
2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3620
Carpinello.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
Carpinello, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 to set aside the verdict convicting him of driving while intoxicated (two counts).

Indicted on two felony counts of driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2) and (3) and § 1193 (1) (c), defendant was found guilty as charged following a jury trial. Defendant’s motion to set aside this verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 on the ground that evidence of his blood alcohol content was improperly admitted into evidence was granted (4 Misc 3d 1002[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50597[U]). The People now appeal.

At trial, the People failed to establish that defendant’s blood sample was taken in compliance with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (4) (a) (1) (ii). Specifically, they failed to introduce evidence that the medical technologist who drew defendant’s blood was authorized to do so by a physician (see People v Moser, 70 NY2d 476 [1987]; People v Olmstead, 233 AD2d 837 [1996]; People v Ebner, 195 AD2d 1006 [1993]). Thus, the results of this blood test were improperly admitted into evidence at trial (see People v Olmstead, supra; People v Ebner, supra; People v Gertz, 189 Misc 2d 315 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 704 [2002]) and the jury’s verdict under that count of the indictment charging statutory driving while intoxicated (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2]) was properly set aside (see People v Olmstead, supra; People v Gertz, supra; People v Pickard, 180 Misc 2d 942 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 865 [1999]; see generally People v Grune, 12 AD3d 944 [2004]).

While the common-law driving while intoxicated count (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]) should not have been dismissed, we conclude that a new trial is nevertheless warranted on this charge. In its original charge to the jury, County Court twice stated that it could consider the results of defendant’s blood test in its deliberations on the common-law driving[*718] while intoxicated count. Thereafter, in response to the jury’s request for an explanation of the differences between the two counts, the court again instructed the jury that it “can look [at] and consider the results of any blood tests that have been produced” in determining guilt under the common-law driving while intoxicated count. In light of these instructions to the jury (compare People v Gruñe, supra-, People v Gertz, supra), we are unable to conclude that the error in admitting evidence of defendant’s blood alcohol content was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]), thus warranting a new trial on this count.

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and the facts, by reversing so much thereof as set aside defendant’s conviction on count one of the indictment; said count reinstated and matter remitted to the County Court of Sullivan County for a new trial; and, as so modified, affirmed.