People v Vargas (Jario)

[*1] People v Vargas (Jario) 2017 NY Slip Op 50021(U) Decided on January 12, 2017 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 12, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Gonzalez, J.
570452/11

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Jario Vargas, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Abraham L. Clott, J.), rendered May 2, 2011, after a jury trial, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs and unlawful possession of marijuana, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Abraham L. Clott, J.), rendered May 2, 2011, affirmed.

The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. Giving the misdemeanor information "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), we find "as a matter of common sense and reasonable pleading" (People v Davis, 13 NY3d 17, 31 [2009]) that it was legally sufficient to charge defendant with violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(4). The arresting officer alleged that defendant operated a motor vehicle; that he had bloodshot, watery eyes and a strong odor of marijuana on his breath, clothing and vehicle; he admitted to the officer that he "smoked three-quarters of a blunt"; and a bag of marijuana was recovered from inside the vehicle (see People v Drouin, 115 AD3d 1153, 1154 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1019 [2014]; Property Clerk of NY City Police Dept. v Lizziano, 302 AD2d 235, 236 [2003]; see also People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419 [1979]. There was no requirement that the information also contain an allegation of erratic driving (see generally People v Fiumara, 116 AD3d 421 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1036 [2014]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concurI concur
Decision Date: January 12, 2017