People v Kehoe (Cheryl)

[*1] People v Kehoe (Cheryl) 2015 NY Slip Op 51837(U) Decided on December 17, 2015 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 17, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
571151/13

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Cheryl Kehoe, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (James M. Burke, J.), rendered October 7, 2013, after a nonjury trial, convicting her of driving while impaired, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (James M. Burke, J.), rendered October 7, 2013, affirmed.

By failing to renew her motion for a trial order of dismissal following her testimony at trial, defendant has waived her sufficiency claims (People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56 [2001]; People v Abarrategui, 306 AD2d 20, 21 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 617 [2003]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that defendant's conviction of driving while impaired (see Vehicle and Traffic Law 1192[1]) was supported by legally sufficient evidence. The credited prosecution testimony showed that moments after defendant's vehicle accelerated abruptly and failed to signal a turn, she exhibited signs of intoxication - her eyes were bloodshot and watery, her face was flushed, her breath had a moderate odor of alcohol, she was unsteady on her feet and had a combative attitude (see People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419, 426-427 [1979], appeal dismissed 446 US 901 [1980]). Morever, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis to disturb the trial court's determinations concerning credibility.

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 17, 2015