result of the breathalyzer test in New York

2010Likewise, the result of the breathalyzer test administered at the precinct approximately two hours after defendant’s arrest, which was below the legal limit, did not undermine a finding of probable cause (see People v Thomas, 68 AD3d 482 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 806 [2010]).

2010Likewise, the result of the breathalyzer test administered at the precinct approximately two hours after defendant’s arrest, which was below the legal limit, did not undermine a finding of probable cause (see People v Thomas, 68 AD3d 482 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 806 [2010]).

1997We are also unpersuaded that County Court erred in its Sandoval compromise, permitting defendant to be cross-examined concerning his 1988 conviction of driving while intoxicated absent any reference to the nature of the offense or the underlying facts (see, People v Noonan, 220 AD2d 811 ; People v Baird, 167 AD2d 693, 694 , lv denied 77 NY2d 903 ).

1997In our view, the result of the breathalyzer test, performed within two hours of defendant’s arrest and showing a blood alcohol level of 0.13%, together with.the physical evidence at the scene of defendant’s arrest and his admission that all of his drinking took place before he drove to the Cat Hollow Road location, adequately established defendant’s operation of a motor vehicle at a time when his blood alcohol level was 0.10% or greater (see, People v Mertz, 68 NY2d 136, 139 ; People v Walters, 213 AD2d 810 , lv denied 86 NY2d 742 ; People v Charland, 194 AD2d 827 ).

1997In our view, the result of the breathalyzer test, performed within two hours of defendant’s arrest and showing a blood alcohol level of 0.13%, together with.the physical evidence at the scene of defendant’s arrest and his admission that all of his drinking took place before he drove to the Cat Hollow Road location, adequately established defendant’s operation of a motor vehicle at a time when his blood alcohol level was 0.10% or greater (see, People v Mertz, 68 NY2d 136, 139 ; People v Walters, 213 AD2d 810 , lv denied 86 NY2d 742 ; People v Charland, 194 AD2d 827 ).

1997We are also unpersuaded that County Court erred in its Sandoval compromise, permitting defendant to be cross-examined concerning his 1988 conviction of driving while intoxicated absent any reference to the nature of the offense or the underlying facts (see, People v Noonan, 220 AD2d 811 ; People v Baird, 167 AD2d 693, 694 , lv denied 77 NY2d 903 ).

1997In our view, the result of the breathalyzer test, performed within two hours of defendant’s arrest and showing a blood alcohol level of 0.13%, together with.the physical evidence at the scene of defendant’s arrest and his admission that all of his drinking took place before he drove to the Cat Hollow Road location, adequately established defendant’s operation of a motor vehicle at a time when his blood alcohol level was 0.10% or greater (see, People v Mertz, 68 NY2d 136, 139 ; People v Walters, 213 AD2d 810 , lv denied 86 NY2d 742 ; People v Charland, 194 AD2d 827 ).

1986Defendant’s contention is more appropriately addressed to the weight that should be accorded to the result of the breathalyzer test than to its admissibility (see, People v Gower, 42 NY2d 117, 121122 ).

1984(People v Redding, 109 Misc 2d 487 .) In the original criminal complaint in this matter, the factual allegation supporting the charge of subdivision 2 of section 1192 was the result of the breathalyzer test.

1984(People v Molina, 121 Misc 2d 483, 491 .) In most cases involving the prosecution of a defendant for driving while intoxicated or impaired, the only tangible evidence offered against him is the result of the breathalyzer test.

1982The police officer’s observations of the defendant, the defendant’s admission and the defendant’s failure of the aleo-sensor test, in conjunction, provided sufficient probable cause for the arrest of the defendant on the charge of driving while intoxicated (Matter of Van Tassell v New York State Comr. of Motor Vehicles, 46 AD2d 984 ; Matter of Williams v Tofany, 46 AD2d 708 ), so the result of the breathalyzer test administered to the defendant will be admitted at trial.

1982The police officer’s observations of the defendant, the defendant’s admission and the defendant’s failure of the aleo-sensor test, in conjunction, provided sufficient probable cause for the arrest of the defendant on the charge of driving while intoxicated (Matter of Van Tassell v New York State Comr. of Motor Vehicles, 46 AD2d 984 ; Matter of Williams v Tofany, 46 AD2d 708 ), so the result of the breathalyzer test administered to the defendant will be admitted at trial.

1979Based upon this factual predicate, if the defendant were refused access to his own doctor, this would be the ground for quashing the result of the breathalyzer test (Matter of Shields v Hults, 26 AD2d 971 ).

1976To conclude otherwise and to treat the presumption as being irrebuttable, one would have to ignore the wording of section 1195 (subd 2, par [c]) which reads in part as follows: "Evidence that there was no more than .07 of one per centum but less than .10 of one per centum by weight of alcohol in Ms blood shall be prima facie evidence that such person was not in an intoxicated condition(Emphasis supplied.) In People v Gmitter ( 81 Misc 2d 745 ), the result of the breathalyzer test admitted into evidence showed that at the time of the test the defendant’s blood contained .21 of 1% by weight of a

1976THE PRIOR HOLDING OF THIS COURT IN A SIMILAR CASE This court in a recent case, People v Fox ( 87 Misc 2d 210 ), determined it inappropriate to accept a plea offered, with the consent of the People, by a Connecticut resident whose blood alcohol level was .17%.