People v Coager

[*1] People v Coager 2013 NY Slip Op 50911(U) Decided on March 19, 2013 Just Ct Of The Town Of Kinderhook, Columbia County Dellehunt, J. 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 19, 2013
Just Ct of the Town of Kinderhook, Columbia County

People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,

against

Robert J. Coager, Defendant.



XXXXX



FOR THE PEOPLE:

PAUL CZAJKA, ESQ.

Columbia County District Attorney

325 Columbia Street

Suite 260

Hudson, New York 12534

By: Robert M. Gibson, Assistant District Attorney

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

MARK A. FLUERY, ESQ.

Attorney for the Defendant

3509 N.Y. 150

East Greenbush, New York 12061

David A. Dellehunt, J.

The defendant, Robert J. Coager, was charged with Unsafe Lane Change in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §1128(a), Failure to Use Designated Lane in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §1128(c), Driving to the Left at Hillcrest/Curve in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §1125(a), Failure to Keep Right in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §1120(a), Driving [*2]While Ability Impaired by Drugs in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §1192(4), Possession of a Controlled Substance by the Ultimate User/Not in Original Container in violation of Public Health Law §3345, and Obtaining a Prescription for a Controlled Substance by Fraud or Deceit in violation of Public Health Law §3397. Defendant moves, by and through his attorney, for the Court to approve the proposed plea agreement between the Defendant and the Columbia County District Attorneys' Office. The People join in Defendant's motion.

Vehicle and Traffic Law §1192(10) sets forth plea bargain limitations for a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §1192(4) as follows:

In any case wherein the charge laid before the court alleges a violation of subdivision two, three, four or four-a of this section, any plea of guilty thereafter entered in satisfaction of such charge must include at least a plea of guilty to the violation of the provisions of one of the subdivisions of this section, other than subdivision five or six, and no other disposition by plea of guilty to any other charge in satisfaction of such charge shall be authorized; provided, however, if the district attorney, upon reviewing the available evidence, determines that the charge of a violation of this section is not warranted, such district attorney may consent, and the court may allow a disposition by plea of guilty to another charge in satisfaction of such charge; provided, however, in all such cases, the court shall set forth upon the record the basis for such disposition.

Vehicle and Traffic Law §1192(10)(a)(i). Assistant District Attorney Robert Gibson reviewed the available evidence and determined that the charge of a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §1192(4) is not warranted and consented to a disposition outside Vehicle and Traffic Law §1192. The Assistant District Attorney has proposed that the charge of Vehicle and Traffic Law §1192(4) be Adjourned in Contemplation of Dismissal for a period of six months, and stated on the record that the People were convinced that, based upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the proposed disposition was justified.Defendant brought the instant motion, joined in by the Assistant District Attorney, for the Court to approve said proposed disposition.

Defendant is a fifty-six year old unemployed pharmaceutical sales representative being treated for prostate cancer, bilateral degenerative hip disease, anxiety, depression and adult attention deficit disorder. Defendant claims that his anxiety and depression are a result of coping with prostate cancer, the recent death of his mother, and loss of his job. Defendant avers that the unidentified prescription bottle in his glove box was a remnant of those items cleaned out of his deceased mother's home following her death. In support of the application the Defendant submitted Affidavits from a Psychiatric Social Worker, The Clinical Director of Human Resource Associates, a Physician's Assistant and a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. According to the proof submitted any medications that appeared in Defendant's blood were duly prescribed by authorized medical personnel for treatment of specific medical disorders suffered by Defendant. Human Resources Associates conducted a comprehensive substance abuse evaluation of the Defendant and determined that Defendant does not have a substance abuse problem. Moreover his physician opined that Defendant's disabilities make it difficult for him to perform field sobriety tests. It is further alleged that Defendant's slurred speech is a result of his speech impediment. [*3]

Based upon the facts and circumstances of the instant case and in consideration of the proof submitted by the Defendant, and the record heretofore made by the People, the Court hereby approves the proposed disposition of the charge of Vehicle and Traffic Law §1192(4). The matter is hereby rescheduled to April 16, 2013 for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.

Defendant is entitled to be present at every stage of the proceedings. All motions not granted herein are hereby denied. This opinion shall constitute the Decision and Order of the Court.

ENTER.SO ORDERED.

March 19, 2013

Kinderhook, New YorkDavid A. Dellehunt

Kinderhook Town Justice