Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
51 New York opinions name it 10 courts 1871–2026 7 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. Niedzwieckigreen2 sentences2025Courts have held that "a determination of whether the refusal warnings were in clear and unequivocal language must be based on an objective standard independent of whether the defendant actually understood them" ( compare , People v Burnet , 882 NYS2d 835, 842 [Sup Court, Bronx County 2009] [internal citations and quotations omitted], with People v Niedzwiecki , 487 NYS2d 694, 696 [Crim Ct, Queens County 1985]["(H)e must reach a threshold point of understanding the choice presented to him, so he may at least be able to make a decision as to the course of conduct he will take"] [emphasis added] 2025Courts have held that "a determination of whether the refusal warnings were in clear and unequivocal language must be based on an objective standard independent of whether the defendant actually understood them" ( compare , People v Burnet , 882 NYS2d 835, 842 [Sup Court, Bronx County 2009] [internal citations and quotations omitted], with People v Niedzwiecki , 487 NYS2d 694, 696 [Crim Ct, Queens County 1985]["(H)e must reach a threshold point of understanding the choice presented to him, so he may at least be able to make a decision as to the course of conduct he will take"] [emphasis added] | 2 | 3 |
People v. Burnetgreen2 sentences2025Courts have held that "a determination of whether the refusal warnings were in clear and unequivocal language must be based on an objective standard independent of whether the defendant actually understood them" ( compare , People v Burnet , 882 NYS2d 835, 842 [Sup Court, Bronx County 2009] [internal citations and quotations omitted], with People v Niedzwiecki , 487 NYS2d 694, 696 [Crim Ct, Queens County 1985]["(H)e must reach a threshold point of understanding the choice presented to him, so he may at least be able to make a decision as to the course of conduct he will take"] [emphasis added] 2025Courts have held that "a determination of whether the refusal warnings were in clear and unequivocal language must be based on an objective standard independent of whether the defendant actually understood them" ( compare , People v Burnet , 882 NYS2d 835, 842 [Sup Court, Bronx County 2009] [internal citations and quotations omitted], with People v Niedzwiecki , 487 NYS2d 694, 696 [Crim Ct, Queens County 1985]["(H)e must reach a threshold point of understanding the choice presented to him, so he may at least be able to make a decision as to the course of conduct he will take"] [emphasis added] | 2 | 2 |
Ryan v. Goordgreen2 sentences2006Furthermore, while petitioner asserts that he was improperly denied the right to call an inmate witness because the hearing officer did not make an adequate inquiry concerning the inmate’s refusal to testify, petitioner did not raise an objection to the legitimacy of the refusal at the hearing and, therefore, may not challenge it now (see Matter of Ryan v Goord, 12 AD3d 799, 800 [2004]). 2006Furthermore, petitioner’s claim that he was improperly denied the right to call an inmate witness is not preserved inasmuch as petitioner did not object to the genuineness of the inmate’s refusal at the hearing (see Matter of Otero v Goord, 17 AD3d 805, 806 [2005]; Matter of Ryan v Goord, 12 AD3d 799, 800 [2004]) or raise this claim in his administrative appeal (see Matter of Green v Williams, 252 AD2d 974, 975 [1998]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2025People v MacDonal d, 89 NY2d 908, 910 (1996); People v Thomas , 46 NY2d 100, 106 (1978); People v Sirico , 135 AD3d 19, 23 (2d Dept 2016); People v Chamberlain , 72 Misc 3d 126(A) (App Term, 2d, 9th &10 Jud Dists 2022). 1983If one persists in a refusal the test is not to be given (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1194, subd 2); the choice is the driver’s (People v Thomas, 46 NY2d 100, 108 ). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Bratchergreen2 sentences2017Assuming, without deciding, that submitting to two breath tests which, in each case, resulted in a readout of "insufficient sample," and yet found a BAC of .12 and .13 (which levels would exceed the level set forth in Vehicle and Traffic § 1192 [2]), constitutes a "failure" of such tests, thereby warranting a finding of two refusals to submit to a chemical test pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (2) (f) (formerly Vehicle Traffic Law § 1194 [4]) ( see generally People v Adler , 145 AD2d 943, 944 [1988]; Matter of Van Sickle v Melton , 64 AD2d 846 [1978] [when a breathalyzer test fails f 2009With respect to the persistence of a defendant’s refusal, there is no requirement that such persistence be repetitive nor is there a minimum number of times that he must refuse (see People v Bratcher, 165 AD2d 906 [3d Dept 1990]; Matter of Nicol v Grant, 117 AD2d 940 [3d Dept 1986]). | 1 | 2 |
Van Tassell v. New York State Commissioner of Motor Vehiclesgreen1 sentence2026Appeals Bd. , 224 AD3d 1305 , 1305-1306 [4th Dept 2024]; Matter of Van Tassell v New York State Commr. of Motor Vehs. , 46 AD2d 984, 984 [3d Dept 1974]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Walkergreen2 sentences2026We previously held this case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to County Court to determine defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds by ruling on the outstanding issues whether the People were required, pursuant to CPL 245.20 (2), to exercise due diligence to obtain transcripts or recordings from the refusal hearing of the Department of Motor Vehicles that were not in their possession and, if so, whether the People made reasonable efforts to comply with the statutory directives and made reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material 2026We previously held this case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to County Court to determine defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds by ruling on the outstanding issues whether the People were required, pursuant to CPL 245.20 (2), to exercise due diligence to obtain transcripts or recordings from the refusal hearing of the Department of Motor Vehicles that were not in their possession and, if so, whether the People made reasonable efforts to comply with the statutory directives and made reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material | 1 | 1 |
People v. MacDonaldgreen2 sentences2025People v MacDonal d, 89 NY2d 908, 910 (1996); People v Thomas , 46 NY2d 100, 106 (1978); People v Sirico , 135 AD3d 19, 23 (2d Dept 2016); People v Chamberlain , 72 Misc 3d 126(A) (App Term, 2d, 9th &10 Jud Dists 2022). 2025People v MacDonal d, 89 NY2d 908, 910 (1996); People v Thomas , 46 NY2d 100, 106 (1978); People v Sirico , 135 AD3d 19, 23 (2d Dept 2016); People v Chamberlain , 72 Misc 3d 126(A) (App Term, 2d, 9th &10 Jud Dists 2022). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Siricogreen2 sentences2025People v MacDonal d, 89 NY2d 908, 910 (1996); People v Thomas , 46 NY2d 100, 106 (1978); People v Sirico , 135 AD3d 19, 23 (2d Dept 2016); People v Chamberlain , 72 Misc 3d 126(A) (App Term, 2d, 9th &10 Jud Dists 2022). 2025People v MacDonal d, 89 NY2d 908, 910 (1996); People v Thomas , 46 NY2d 100, 106 (1978); People v Sirico , 135 AD3d 19, 23 (2d Dept 2016); People v Chamberlain , 72 Misc 3d 126(A) (App Term, 2d, 9th &10 Jud Dists 2022). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smithgreen1 sentence2021Defendant's statement to the police that he wanted to make a phone call to a friend or sibling to get in touch with an attorney was insufficient to invoke his right to counsel ( see People v Hartley , 65 NY2d 703 , 705 [1985]; People v Rowell , 59 NY2d 727, 730 [1983]), as it did not unequivocally inform the officers of his intention to retain counsel, or that he wanted the opportunity to consult with an attorney before speaking further to the police or undertaking the breath test ( cf. People v Smith , 18 NY3d 544, 547 [2012]; People v Gursey , 22 NY2d 224 [1968]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rowellgreen1 sentence2021Defendant's statement to the police that he wanted to make a phone call to a friend or sibling to get in touch with an attorney was insufficient to invoke his right to counsel ( see People v Hartley , 65 NY2d 703 , 705 [1985]; People v Rowell , 59 NY2d 727, 730 [1983]), as it did not unequivocally inform the officers of his intention to retain counsel, or that he wanted the opportunity to consult with an attorney before speaking further to the police or undertaking the breath test ( cf. People v Smith , 18 NY3d 544, 547 [2012]; People v Gursey , 22 NY2d 224 [1968]). | 1 | 1 |
The People v. Jin Cheng Lingreen1 sentence2020In sum, "there is record support for the lower court['s] determinations that defendant understood the import of his Miranda rights" and the refusal warnings ( id. at 726). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Adlergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tafari v. Selskygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Solomon v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Cookgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Addisongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Maxwellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Frostgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Green v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Otero v. Goordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pennsylvania v. Munizgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard
green
2 sentences2018The effect of the majority's rule is to accelerate an already growing and alarming rate of refusals as they are without consequence, thus frustrating drunk driving prosecutions and fundamentally undermining the very purpose of the statute ( see Namuswe et al., Breath Test Refusal Rates in the United States at 3 [DOT-HS-811-881 2014]; Birchfield , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. at 2169-2170 ). 2018The effect of the majority's rule is to accelerate an already growing and alarming rate of refusals as they are without consequence, thus frustrating drunk driving prosecutions and fundamentally undermining the very purpose of the statute ( see U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Traffic Safety Facts, Namuswe et al., Breath Test Refusal Rates in the United States—2011 Update at 3 [DOT-HS-811-881, Mar. 2014]; Birchfield , 579 US at &mdash, 136 S Ct at 2169-2170 ). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Molinsky v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
green
2 sentences2014The petitioner’s remaining contention is not properly before this Court, as it was not raised at the administrative hearing (see Matter of Klapak v Blum, 65 NY2d 670 , 672 [1985]; Matter of Molinsky v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 105 AD3d 960 , 960-961 [2013]). 2014The petitioner’s remaining contention is not properly before this Court, as it was not raised at the administrative hearing (see Matter of Klapak v Blum, 65 NY2d 670 , 672 [1985]; Matter of Molinsky v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 105 AD3d 960 , 960-961 [2013]). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Matter of Geary v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York
green
2 sentences1988It is well established that mere delay in scheduling a refusal hearing will not oust respondents of jurisdiction (Matter of Geary v Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 92 AD2d 38 , affd 59 NY2d 950 ). 1986In order to successfully argue that a delay in scheduling a refusal hearing pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 constituted a violation of the State Administrative Procedure Act § 301, the petitioner must show that he was substantially prejudiced by such delay (Matter of Geary v Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of State of N Y, 59 NY2d 950 ). | 2 | 1986–1988 |
The Matter of Pedro Endara-Caicedo v.New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
green
1 sentence2026At the outset, the DMV refusal hearing process is administrative and separate from the City Court proceeding ( see generally Matter of Endara-Caicedo v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. , 38 NY3d 20 , 25-26 [2022]). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a
green
1 sentence2024In our view, the documentary evidence admitted in evidence at the refusal hearing establishes that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner was at least impaired by alcohol at the time of his arrest ( see id. ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Gursey
green
1 sentence2021Defendant's statement to the police that he wanted to make a phone call to a friend or sibling to get in touch with an attorney was insufficient to invoke his right to counsel ( see People v Hartley , 65 NY2d 703 , 705 [1985]; People v Rowell , 59 NY2d 727, 730 [1983]), as it did not unequivocally inform the officers of his intention to retain counsel, or that he wanted the opportunity to consult with an attorney before speaking further to the police or undertaking the breath test ( cf. People v Smith , 18 NY3d 544, 547 [2012]; People v Gursey , 22 NY2d 224 [1968]). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Sellers (Scott)
neutral
1 sentence2021The second officer{**73 Misc 3d at 8} testified that he also had defendant perform several field sobriety tests and that defendant exhibited six clues of intoxication. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2020She then read defendant his Miranda ( Miranda v Arizona , 384 US 436 [1966]) rights and the refusal warnings, both in English. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Plaza
green
1 sentence2020Defendant's claim that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, as defendant did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise the concerns he now raises on appeal at his plea colloquy, at his sentencing over a month later, or at any time in between ( see People v Monroe , 174 AD3d 649 , 650 [2019]; People v Plaza , 178 AD3d 958 [2019]; People v Tong , 238 AD2d 607 [1997]), and we decline to review his claim in the interest of justice. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Monroe
green
1 sentence2020Defendant's claim that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, as defendant did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise the concerns he now raises on appeal at his plea colloquy, at his sentencing over a month later, or at any time in between ( see People v Monroe , 174 AD3d 649 , 650 [2019]; People v Plaza , 178 AD3d 958 [2019]; People v Tong , 238 AD2d 607 [1997]), and we decline to review his claim in the interest of justice. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Lu Yang Tong
green
1 sentence2020Defendant's claim that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, as defendant did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise the concerns he now raises on appeal at his plea colloquy, at his sentencing over a month later, or at any time in between ( see People v Monroe , 174 AD3d 649 , 650 [2019]; People v Plaza , 178 AD3d 958 [2019]; People v Tong , 238 AD2d 607 [1997]), and we decline to review his claim in the interest of justice. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Matter of Hickey v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs.
green
1 sentence2018The findings of the administrative law judge are supported by substantial evidence in the record, and the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Administrative Appeals Board properly drew an adverse inference from the petitioner's failure to testify at the hearing ( see Matter of Hickey v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 142 AD3d at 669 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Clark green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Fuentes
green
1 sentence2018The defendant failed to proffer new facts which were not discoverable with reasonable diligence before the determination of the motion that would have changed the refusal hearing court's determination ( see CPL 710.40[4]; cf. People v Clark , 88 NY2d 552, 555 ; People v Fuentes , 53 NY2d 892, 894 ; People v Ekwegbalu , 131 AD3d 982, 984 ; People v Jackson , 97 AD3d 693, 694 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Wagner v. Fiala
green
1 sentence2018Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the record does not demonstrate that the arresting officer, who testified at the hearing, gave the petitioner an incorrect explanation of the refusal warnings ( see Matter of Wagner v Fiala, 113 AD3d at 695 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Ekwegbalu
green
1 sentence2018The defendant failed to proffer new facts which were not discoverable with reasonable diligence before the determination of the motion that would have changed the refusal hearing court's determination ( see CPL 710.40[4]; cf. People v Clark , 88 NY2d 552, 555 ; People v Fuentes , 53 NY2d 892, 894 ; People v Ekwegbalu , 131 AD3d 982, 984 ; People v Jackson , 97 AD3d 693, 694 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2018The defendant failed to proffer new facts which were not discoverable with reasonable diligence before the determination of the motion that would have changed the refusal hearing court's determination ( see CPL 710.40[4]; cf. People v Clark , 88 NY2d 552, 555 ; People v Fuentes , 53 NY2d 892, 894 ; People v Ekwegbalu , 131 AD3d 982, 984 ; People v Jackson , 97 AD3d 693, 694 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Odum
green
2 sentences2018However, based on the undisputed evidence in the hearing record,{** 31 NY3d at 356 } the refusal warnings were not a misapplication of law at all. 2018However, based on the undisputed evidence in the hearing record,{** 31 NY3d at 356 } the refusal warnings were not a misapplication of law at all. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Contes
green
1 sentence2018Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Van Sickle v. Melton green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Moses green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| People v. Malinsky green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| People v. Baldwin green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| People v. Wise green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| People v. Dodt green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Nicol v. Grant green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Reynolds green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Gagliardi v. Department of Motor Vehicles green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Carey v. Melton green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Camagos green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Lynch green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Stanley v. Burnside neutral | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Stanley v. Burnside green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Worley green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| People v. Brol green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Pell v. Board of Education green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Leacraft green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| People v. Francis neutral | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| People v. Davis neutral | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| People v. Thompson neutral | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.