influence of alcohol violation in New York

2021Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California ( 386 US 738 ), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

2021Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California ( 386 US 738 ), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

2025Moreover, the hearing evidence demonstrated that the trooper lawfully arrested the petitioner and that the petitioner refused the trooper's request to submit to a chemical test after having been given sufficient warnings of the consequences of such refusal ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194[2][c]; Matter of Kirch v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. , 232 AD3d at 791; Matter of Roenbeck v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. , 221 AD3d at 1014-1015 ).

2020Contrary to the petitioner's contention, substantial evidence supports a finding that the lieutenant who first encountered the petitioner, whether acting in the performance of his public service function or in the performance of his role as an agent of law enforcement, was justified in approaching the petitioner's vehicle, upon observing the petitioner slumped over in the driver's seat of the vehicle, and in opening the unlocked driver's side door, when the petitioner did not respond to several attempts to awaken him by knocking on the window ( see People v De Bour , 40 NY2d 210, 215 ; People

2020Contrary to the petitioner's contention, substantial evidence supports a finding that the lieutenant who first encountered the petitioner, whether acting in the performance of his public service function or in the performance of his role as an agent of law enforcement, was justified in approaching the petitioner's vehicle, upon observing the petitioner slumped over in the driver's seat of the vehicle, and in opening the unlocked driver's side door, when the petitioner did not respond to several attempts to awaken him by knocking on the window ( see People v De Bour , 40 NY2d 210, 215 ; People

2020Contrary to the petitioner's contention, substantial evidence supports a finding that the lieutenant who first encountered the petitioner, whether acting in the performance of his public service function or in the performance of his role as an agent of law enforcement, was justified in approaching the petitioner's vehicle, upon observing the petitioner slumped over in the driver's seat of the vehicle, and in opening the unlocked driver's side door, when the petitioner did not respond to several attempts to awaken him by knocking on the window ( see People v De Bour , 40 NY2d 210, 215 ; People

2010No jurisdictional defect was established, and neither this claim nor defendant’s related claim that the failure to charge a separate violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (1) unconstitutionally assumed his guilt was preserved for review (see CPL 210.20; People v Iannone, 45 NY2d at 600 ).

2001The People contend that in this case the strict liability portion of the offense — the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2) and (3) — is nothing more than an aggravating circumstance and thus there can be attempt liability under the statute (see, People v Fullan, 92 NY2d 690 , supra; People v Miller, 87 NY2d 211 , supra).

2001The People contend that in this case the strict liability portion of the offense — the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2) and (3) — is nothing more than an aggravating circumstance and thus there can be attempt liability under the statute (see, People v Fullan, 92 NY2d 690 , supra; People v Miller, 87 NY2d 211 , supra).

2000This is an application by the People, pursuant to People v Ventimiglia ( 52 NY2d 350 ) and People v Molineux ( 168 NY 264 ), for permission to present testimony that the defendant, who is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of section 1192 (3) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, had been previously convicted of the same crime in violation of subdivision (2).

2000This is an application by the People, pursuant to People v Ventimiglia ( 52 NY2d 350 ) and People v Molineux ( 168 NY 264 ), for permission to present testimony that the defendant, who is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of section 1192 (3) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, had been previously convicted of the same crime in violation of subdivision (2).

1974Where, however, only une uniform traffic ticket is served and one simplified information is filed, for example, charging a violation of subdivision 3 of section 1192, section 1196 provides that a defendant may be found guilty of but one of the enumerated subdivisions of section 1192 (see People v. Kaeppel, 74 Misc 2d 220, 222 ).