66 New York opinions name it 10 courts 1970–2023 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Campbellgreen2 sentences2011“It is well settled that a foundation establishing the reliability and accuracy of a machine used to measure blood alcohol content is a prerequisite to admitting the results of a blood alcohol test into evidence” (People v Baker, 51 AD3d 1047, 1048 ; see People v Campbell, 73 NY2d 481, 485 ). 2011“It is well settled that a foundation establishing the reliability and accuracy of a machine used to measure blood alcohol content is a prerequisite to admitting the results of a blood alcohol test into evidence” (People v Baker, 51 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2008]; see People v Campbell, 73 NY2d 481, 485 [1989]). | 4 | 5 |
People v. Goodellgreen2 sentences2005“Where these conditions are satisfied, the statute furnishes authority for the administration of a blood alcohol test even in the absence of a court order or the suspect’s actual consent” (People v Goodell, 79 NY2d 869, 870 [1992]). 1999These results, which revealed defendant’s blood alcohol content to be 0.17% approximately three hours after the accident, were admitted pursuant to the implied consent provisions of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (2) (a) (1). * A motorist is deemed to have consented to the administration of a blood alcohol test provided that there were reasonable grounds to believe that such individual was driving while intoxicated and the test was administered “within two hours after such person has been placed under arrest for any such violation” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 [2] [a] [1]; see, People v Goo | 3 | 5 |
People v. Crimminsgreen2 sentences2013The People correctly concede that the defendant’s medical records were improperly redacted to omit the results of the defendant’s blood alcohol test (see CPLR 4518 [c]; Rodriguez v riborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 276 AD2d 769 [2000]). owever, the error was harmless, since the evidence of the defendant’s guilt of driving while ability impaired by alcohol was overwhelming, and there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the defendant’s conviction of that offense (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). 2013The People correctly concede that the defendant’s medical records were improperly redacted to omit the results of the defendant’s blood alcohol test (see CPLR 4518 [c]; Rodriguez v riborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 276 AD2d 769 [2000]). owever, the error was harmless, since the evidence of the defendant’s guilt of driving while ability impaired by alcohol was overwhelming, and there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the defendant’s conviction of that offense (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). | 3 | 3 |
South Dakota v. Nevillegreen2 sentences1995"Schmerber, then, clearly allows a State to force a person suspected of driving while intoxicated to submit to a blood-alcohol test” (South Dakota v Neville, 459 US 553, 559 [1983]). 1983Assn.], Bank Americard Div. v Hobbs, 94 Misc 2d 780 ; see, also, South Dakota v Neville, 459 US _ , 51 USLW 4148 [where the United States Supreme Court upheld the use of a defendant’s refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test as evidence of guilt].) The results of the HLA test may be received by the court as evidence in a paternity proceeding. | 2 | 3 |
People v. Atkinsgreen2 sentences2011That is, the arrest requirement in the implied consent law, like the two-hour time frame therein (see People v Atkins, 85 NY2d at 1008-1009), has no application where a driver expressly and voluntarily consents to the administration of a blood alcohol test. 2010The defendant’s contention that the second warning was given more than two hours after his arrest and that, therefore, it negates his persistent refusal to submit to the blood alcohol test,- is without merit (see People v Atkins, 85 NY2d 1007, 1009 [1995]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Bakergreen2 sentences2011“It is well settled that a foundation establishing the reliability and accuracy of a machine used to measure blood alcohol content is a prerequisite to admitting the results of a blood alcohol test into evidence” (People v Baker, 51 AD3d 1047, 1048 ; see People v Campbell, 73 NY2d 481, 485 ). 2011“It is well settled that a foundation establishing the reliability and accuracy of a machine used to measure blood alcohol content is a prerequisite to admitting the results of a blood alcohol test into evidence” (People v Baker, 51 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2008]; see People v Campbell, 73 NY2d 481, 485 [1989]). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Bagleygreen2 sentences2009A formal arrest is not required where the suspect is unconscious or is otherwise unable to appreciate the significance of an arrest (see Goodell, 164 AD2d 321, 325 [1990], affd 79 NY2d 869 [1992]; People v Bradway, 285 AD2d 831, 833 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 639 [2001] [“the necessity of a formal arrest prior to a blood test may be ‘vitiated by (a) defendant’s unconscious and delirious condition’ ” (quoting People v Bagley, 211 AD2d 882, 883 [1995] , lv denied 86 NY2d 779 [1995])]; see also People v Skinner, 203 AD2d 891 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 832 [1994]). 2001It has been recognized that the necessity of a formal arrest prior to a blood test may be “vitiated by [a] defendant’s unconscious and delirious condition” (People v Bagley, 211 AD2d 882, 883 , lv denied 86 NY2d 779 ; see, People v Goodell, 79 NY2d 869 ; People v Hart, supra). | 1 | 2 |
LaDuke v. State Farm Insurancegreen2 sentences2008Co., 158 AD2d 137, 138 [1990]; Tinao v City of New York, 112 AD2d 363 [1985]). 2000Co., 158 AD2d 137 ; Tinao v City of New York, 112 AD2d 363 ; Campbell v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. | 1 | 2 |
Maxcy v. County of Putnamgreen2 sentences2008A blood alcohol test result, as set forth in a certified hospital record, constitutes prima facie evidence of the test result pursuant to CPLR 4518 (c) (see Rodriguez v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 276 AD2d 769 [2000]; Martin v City of New York, 275 AD2d 351, 355 [2000]; Cleary v City of New York, 234 AD2d 411 [1996]; Maxcy v County of Putnam, 178 AD2d 729, 730 [1991]; LaDuke v State Farm Ins. 2000The blood alcohol test result, as set forth in a certified hospital record, was admissible as prima facie evidence of the same pursuant to CPLR 4518 (c) (see, Cleary v City of New York, 234 AD2d 411 ; Maxcy v County of Putnam, 178 AD2d 729 ; LaDuke v State Farm Ins. | 1 | 2 |
Dillenbeck v. Hessgreen2 sentences2007Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d at 282; cf. People v Petro, 122 AD2d at 309 ), not, as the People in the case at bar sought, the physical blood sample. 1999Unlike Dillenbeck (supra), however, the blood alcohol test results were not sought in the instant case. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Wardgreen2 sentences1990The two-hour requirement of Vehicle and Traffic Law former § 1194 (1) does not pertain to those cases in which, as here, a defendant consents to the procedure (see, People v Mills, 124 AD2d 600, 601 , lv denied 69 NY2d 953 ; see also, People v Ward, 307 NY 73, 76-78 ). 1983The officer clearly enunciated to defendant her rights and she understood the nature of her consent to submit to a blood alcohol test (cf. People v Ward, 307 NY 73 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Palmergreen1 sentence2022Although the defendant did not raise any arguments related to whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause in his motion to controvert the search warrant and to suppress the results of the blood alcohol test, the Supreme Court "expressly decided" the issue of whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause ( see CPL 470.05[2]; see generally People v Palmer , [*2] 84 AD3d 1414 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Paccionegreen1 sentence2022"To establish probable cause, a search warrant application must provide sufficient information 'to support a reasonable belief that evidence of a crime may be found in a certain place'" ( id. at 714 , quoting People v McCulloch , 226 AD2d 848, 849 ; see People v Paccione , 259 AD2d 563, 564 ). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Heidelmarkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Daltongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Englishgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Shawgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Johnson v. Plotkingreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Kevillygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Cruzgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Robertsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Elygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Verdilegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Skardinskigreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hawkinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Gintygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Schuesslergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Jonesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sukljian v. Charles Ross & Son Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Mateogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bleakleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Goodellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Skinnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bradwaygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Ayalagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Richardsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Griesbeckgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Swanstongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Thomas
green
2 sentences1985The Vehicle and Traffic Law “conferred an absolute right to refuse to submit to such a test, unqualified by any provision that evidence of such refusal might be received on trial” (People v Thomas, 46 NY2d 100, 109 , supra). 1983The essential purpose of this section 1194 warning is to obtain the consent of a motorist, suspected of drunken driving, to submit to a blood-alcohol test (People v Thomas, 46 NY2d 100, 108 ). | 4 | 1983–1985 |
People v. Kates
green
2 sentences1985Plaintiff has advanced and we discern no reason for applying here an evidentiary rule concerning blood-alcohol tests different from the rule generally applied in other civil cases. 3 We note, moreover, that the anomalous result of adopting as the governing rule here a categorial exclusion of test results absent consent would be to impose a more stringent rule in this civil case involving an exclusion under a no-fault policy than exists in criminal actions under section 1192 (see, generally, People v Kates, 53 NY2d 591 , holding admissible in a criminal prosecution the result of a blood-alcohol 1984However, a defendant who is unconscious or so disoriented that the police are unable to obtain his consent may be subjected to a blood alcohol test since the statute was not violated because “the defendant had not refused consent” (People v Kates, 53 NY2d 591, 595 ; see People v Hall, 91 AD2d 1002 , affd 61 NY2d 834 ). | 4 | 1983–1985 |
Rodriguez v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority
green
2 sentences2013The People correctly concede that the defendant’s medical records were improperly redacted to omit the results of the defendant’s blood alcohol test (see CPLR 4518 [c]; Rodriguez v riborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 276 AD2d 769 [2000]). owever, the error was harmless, since the evidence of the defendant’s guilt of driving while ability impaired by alcohol was overwhelming, and there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the defendant’s conviction of that offense (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). 2013The People correctly concede that the defendant’s medical records were improperly redacted to omit the results of the defendant’s blood alcohol test (see CPLR 4518 [c]; Rodriguez v riborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 276 AD2d 769 [2000]). owever, the error was harmless, since the evidence of the defendant’s guilt of driving while ability impaired by alcohol was overwhelming, and there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the defendant’s conviction of that offense (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). | 3 | 2008–2013 |
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences1985Schmerber v California ( 384 US 757 [1966]) held that the State may properly compel a person suspected of driving while intoxicated to submit to a blood alcohol test, as the results are nontestimonial evidence unprotected by the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. 1984(Schmerber v California, supra; People v Thomas, supra; People v Kates, supra.) Defendant’s contention here, is that no probable or reasonable cause was present to justify the officer’s request and that section 1193-a of the Vehicle and Traffic Law is, therefore, unconstitutional as applied because it authorizes such a test absent probable cause. | 3 | 1973–1985 |
People v. Washington
green
2 sentences2022The defendant consented to the blood test while at a hospital ( see People v Gore , 117 AD3d 845 ), and the record reflects that the defendant, who was aware at the time that an attorney had been retained to represent him, did not ask to consult with counsel prior to giving his consent ( see People v Washington , 23 NY3d 228, 232 ). 2017Because the record does not establish that counsel “entered” the case before the test was given, the Supreme Court erred in finding that the blood alcohol test was given in violation of the defendant’s limited right under Gursey and Washington to consult with counsel (cf. People v Washington, 23 NY3d 228 [2014]; People v Grice, 100 NY2d 318 [2003]; People v Gursey, 22 NY2d 224 [1968]). | 2 | 2017–2022 |
People v. Grennon
green
2 sentences2018People v Baker , 51 AD3d at 1050 ; People v Wilkins , 52 Misc 3d at 74-75 ; People v Grennon, 36 Misc 3d 33 , 35-36 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011]; see also People v English , 103 AD2d 979, 980 [1984]). 2017People v Crane , 35 Misc 3d 132 [A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50695[U] , *3 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]; People v Grennon , 36 Misc 3d 33 , 36 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011]), and the high reading reported in this case could properly be considered as evidence of defendant's impairment. | 2 | 2017–2018 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2017A short time after the test was administered, the defendant was given his Miranda warnings Csee Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]), and he made an inculpatory statement. 1970While defense counsel may have been taking an unusual approach to the defense of a charge of driving while intoxicated, the exploration of understanding of the warnings is his absolute right under the Miranda decision wherein it was said, 11 If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel.” (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 475 .) The question of whether | 2 | 1970–2017 |
People v. Danielson
green
2 sentences2017In conducting a weight of the evidence review ( see CPL 470.15 [5]), we must determine whether all of the elements of the crime charged were established beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342 , 249 [2007]; People v Fournier , 137 AD3d 1318 , 1319 [2016]). 2010In 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], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). | 2 | 2010–2017 |
Tinao v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2008Co., 158 AD2d 137, 138 [1990]; Tinao v City of New York, 112 AD2d 363 [1985]). 2000Co., 158 AD2d 137 ; Tinao v City of New York, 112 AD2d 363 ; Campbell v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. | 2 | 2000–2008 |
Cleary v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2008A blood alcohol test result, as set forth in a certified hospital record, constitutes prima facie evidence of the test result pursuant to CPLR 4518 (c) (see Rodriguez v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 276 AD2d 769 [2000]; Martin v City of New York, 275 AD2d 351, 355 [2000]; Cleary v City of New York, 234 AD2d 411 [1996]; Maxcy v County of Putnam, 178 AD2d 729, 730 [1991]; LaDuke v State Farm Ins. 2000The blood alcohol test result, as set forth in a certified hospital record, was admissible as prima facie evidence of the same pursuant to CPLR 4518 (c) (see, Cleary v City of New York, 234 AD2d 411 ; Maxcy v County of Putnam, 178 AD2d 729 ; LaDuke v State Farm Ins. | 2 | 2000–2008 |
Fafinski v. Reliance Insurance
green
2 sentences2000Co. ( 106 AD2d 88 , affd 65 NY2d 990 ), do not address the application of CPLR 4518 (c), they, nonetheless, require the establishment of a proper foundation before the result of a blood alcohol test may be admitted on the issue of intoxication. 1988Co., supra, and cases cited therein), the blood alcohol test result was technically inadmissible in a court of law for lack of a proper foundation (see, Diamond v Acker, 78 AD2d 546 ). | 2 | 1988–2000 |
Shoreham-Wading River Central School District v. Town of Brookhaven
neutral
2 sentences2000Co. ( 106 AD2d 88 , affd 65 NY2d 990 ), do not address the application of CPLR 4518 (c), they, nonetheless, require the establishment of a proper foundation before the result of a blood alcohol test may be admitted on the issue of intoxication. 1988Co., 106 AD2d 88 , affd 65 NY2d 990 ). | 2 | 1988–2000 |
People v. Moselle
green
2 sentences1984K On this appeal, we initially note that the results of a blood alcohol test were properly suppressed because the blood sample upon which the test was performed had been obtained by the police without either consent or a court order (People v Moselle, 57 NY2d 97 ; People v Nugent, 92 AD2d 735 ). 1983Since no court order was sought or obtained for the withdrawal of the blood sample from the defendant, the only basis for its admissibility on this count would be that it was obtained with the defendant’s consent (Matter of Abe A., 56 NY2d 288, supra; People v Moselle, 57 NY2d 97 , supra). | 2 | 1983–1984 |
People v. Licausi
green
2 sentences2023Under the circumstances here, the police sufficiently complied with the procedures for obtaining a warrant to compel the defendant to submit to a blood alcohol test under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(3) ( see People v Licausi , 122 AD3d 771, 772 ). 2023Under the circumstances here, the police sufficiently complied with the procedures for obtaining a warrant to compel the defendant to submit to a blood alcohol test under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(3) ( see People v Licausi , 122 AD3d 771, 772 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Murray
green
2 sentences2022This case is distinguishable from a situation where a defendant raises specific arguments regarding probable cause, the court directly addresses those arguments, and then on appeal the defendant seeks to raise additional, new arguments regarding probable cause ( cf. People v Murray , 136 AD3d 714 ). 2022"To establish probable cause, a search warrant application must provide sufficient information 'to support a reasonable belief that evidence of a crime may be found in a certain place'" ( id. at 714 , quoting People v McCulloch , 226 AD2d 848, 849 ; see People v Paccione , 259 AD2d 563, 564 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Gore
green
1 sentence2022The defendant consented to the blood test while at a hospital ( see People v Gore , 117 AD3d 845 ), and the record reflects that the defendant, who was aware at the time that an attorney had been retained to represent him, did not ask to consult with counsel prior to giving his consent ( see People v Washington , 23 NY3d 228, 232 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. McCulloch
green
1 sentence2022"To establish probable cause, a search warrant application must provide sufficient information 'to support a reasonable belief that evidence of a crime may be found in a certain place'" ( id. at 714 , quoting People v McCulloch , 226 AD2d 848, 849 ; see People v Paccione , 259 AD2d 563, 564 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Esposito (Monique) neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Storm v. Board of Elections green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Segota v. Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Wilkins neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Wells green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Grice green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Gursey green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Fournier green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Vandover green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Brown green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Pealer green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Oliver green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Bullcoming v. New Mexico green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Pringle v. Wolfe green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| People v. Craig green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Crawford v. Washington green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Ayer v. New Hampshire green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| People v. Lebrecht green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| People v. Kanhai green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| People v. Gangale green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Dunaway v. New York green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Huntley green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.