| People v Al-Madri (Haym) |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 50612(U) [82 Misc 3d 132(A)] |
| Decided on May 23, 2024 |
| Appellate Term, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Steven M. Statsinger, J.), rendered August 19, 2016, convicting him, after a nonjury trial, of driving while impaired by alcohol, and imposing sentence.
Per Curiam.
Judgment of conviction (Steven M. Statsinger, J.), rendered August 19, 2016, affirmed.
The verdict convicting defendant of driving while impaired by alcohol (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[1]) was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations. The credited police testimony demonstrated that defendant drove the wrong way down a one-way street and made an illegal U-turn at approximately 3:20 a.m., while exhibiting classic signs of intoxication, including bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, an odor of alcohol on his breath, and was unbalanced and unsteady as he exited his vehicle (see People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419, 426-428 [1979]; see also People v Alexander, 69 Misc 3d 130[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51162[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1049 [2021]). Furthermore, the Intoxilyzer 5000 test revealed that defendant's blood alcohol level was .06 (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195[2][b]).
We also find unavailing defendant's contention that the court erred in admitting the results of the portable field breath test administered at the scene of his traffic stop. The People demonstrated that the testing device utilized appears on the list of approved breath-testing instruments compiled by the New York State Department of Health (see 10 NYCRR 59.4[b]), was shown to be in proper working order when the test was performed and the test was properly administered (see People v Boscic, 15 NY3d 494, 498 [2010]). In any event, even assuming the trial court erred in admitting the challenged evidence, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur