People v Quirisumbay (Angel)

[*1] People v Quirisumbay (Angel) 2016 NY Slip Op 50168(U) Decided on February 17, 2016 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 17, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, J.
570795/11

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Angel Quirisumbay, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), rendered September 15, 2011, after a jury trial, convicting him of driving while impaired, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), rendered September 15, 2011, affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of driving while impaired (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[1]) was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility. The credited police testimony established that, after defendant was stopped for a traffic infraction, he exhibited signs of intoxication - his eyes were bloodshot and watery, his face was flushed, his speech was slurred and his breath had a strong odor of alcohol (see People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419, 426-427 [1979], appeal dismissed 446 US 901 [1980]). Furthermore, the Intoxilyzer 5000 test revealed that defendant's blood alcohol level was .14 percent (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195[2][c]). Defendant's argument that the jury, by acquitting him of driving while intoxicated per se (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[2]), necessarily rejected the Intoxilyzer test results, "calls for an impermissible invasion of the jury's deliberative processes" (People v Williams, 239 AD2d 271, 272 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 899 [1997], quoting People v Rivera, 201 AD2d 377 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 875 [1994]; see People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557, 562-563 [2000]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 17, 2016