People v Gottwald (Kurt)

[*1] People v Gottwald (Kurt) 2020 NY Slip Op 51087(U) Decided on September 25, 2020 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 25, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Cooper, Higgitt, JJ.
570047/12

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Kurt Gottwald, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J.), rendered January 3, 2012, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while impaired, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J.), rendered January 3, 2012, affirmed.

The misdemeanor information charging defendant with driving while impaired (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[1]) was not jurisdictionally defective. The arresting officer alleged that, on a specified date, time and street location, defendant operated a 2003 Honda motor vehicle, had bloodshot and watery eyes, the odor of alcohol on his breath, was unsteady on his feet and refused to submit to a breath test (see People v Fiumara, 116 AD3d 421 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1036 [2014]; People v Lawrence, 53 Misc 3d 137[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51469[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1147 [2017]; see also People v Taylor, 104 AD3d 603, 604 [2013], lv denied 21 NY2d 947 [2013]). These allegations gave defendant sufficient notice to prepare a defense and had detail adequate to prevent him from being tried twice for the same offense (see People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225 [2009]). There was no requirement that the information also contain an allegation of erratic driving (see People v Fiumara, 116 AD3d at 421).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 25, 2020