People v Miller (Darlene)

[*1] People v Miller (Darlene) 2021 NY Slip Op 50315(U) Decided on April 15, 2021 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 15, 2021
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, P.J., ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, TIMOTHY S. DRISCOLL, JJ
2017-2245 RO CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Darlene Miller, Appellant.

Dwight D. Joyce, for appellant. Rockland County District Attorney (Amanda M. Doty of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of South Nyack, Rockland County (Thomas Mascola, J.), rendered October 25, 2017. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, convicted defendant of driving while ability impaired, and imposed sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

After a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of driving while ability impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]) based upon testimony and other evidence that defendant rear-ended a parked police car which had its emergency lights activated; that defendant had red and glassy eyes, and an odor of alcohol on her breath; that defendant admitted that she had consumed alcohol; and that defendant refused to submit to a breath test.

Contrary to defendant's contention, the People established at a suppression hearing that there was probable cause to arrest her for driving while intoxicated (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]; People v Johnson, 140 AD3d 978, 979 [2016]; People v Kemper, 65 Misc 3d 150[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51855[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2019]). Furthermore, the court properly denied suppression of defendant's statements (see People v Dougal, 266 AD2d 574 [1999]; People v MacKenzie, 9 Misc 3d 129[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51535[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]).

Defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish her guilt of driving while ability impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]) is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 [*2]NY2d 10, 19-20 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of driving while ability impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]) beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 409 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon a review of the record, we are satisfied that the guilty verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

RUDERMAN, P.J., EMERSON and DRISCOLL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: April 15, 2021