Articles Posted in DWI / DUI

Ruggerio v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co.

Court Discusses Whether the Defendant was Indemnified against Liability arising from an Accident

The plaintiff was involved in an accident with a taxi operator at a time when the operator did not possess a license to operate a taxi and his operator license was suspended as a consequence of driving while intoxicated DWI. The plaintiff had obtained judgment on a previous occasion against the insurance company of the defendant based on two separate cause of action. The first cause of action involved vicarious liability of the insurance company as a result of the negligence of one of their drivers. The second cause of involved the negligence of the insurance company in failing to determine whether the driver was qualified to operate a taxi and assigning him with a taxi when he was intoxicated. The plaintiff initiated an action pursuant to the former section 167 (subd. 1, par. [b] ) of the Insurance Law to recover insurance proceeds pursuant to a judgment obtained by plaintiff against defendant’s insured. However, the Supreme Court held that the policy which the defendant possessed contained a standard exclusion for liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation or use of an automobile as such the policy was inapplicable to both causes of action. There was no harm done to the plaintiff until the driver went behind the wheel of the taxi. The plaintiff appealed the decision.

Continue reading

People v Guaman

Court Discusses Whether the Judicial Hearing Officer at a Suppression Hearing was Biased

The defendant was charged with two counts of driving while intoxicated DWI and one count of aggravated driving while intoxicated. The defendant requested a suppression hearing to suppress the breathalyzer results. The hearing was presided over by a judicial hearing officer on May 10, 2007. The prosecution presented one witness and closed its case and the defense presented one and rested. The hearing officer credited the prosecution’s witness’s testimony and recommended that the defendant’s request to suppress the breathalyzer results be denied. The defendant informed the People and the officer of his intention to reopen the hearing upon receipt of the missing Rosario material. The case was adjourned to June 14, 2007 for further proceedings.

People v. Condarco

Court Discusses Whether Suspension of a Driver’s License is a Punitive or Remedial in Nature

The defendants were arrested and charged for driving while intoxicated DWI while having a blood alcohol level that is over the legal limit of .10. In each case, the defendant’s license was suspended at the arraignment pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193(2)(e)(7)(a) and (b). The defendants’ Queens County Criminal Attorney moved to dismiss the dockets on the ground of double jeopardy under section 170.30(1)(f) of the CPL as the suspension of the defendants license constituted as a penalty. The following issues were examined by the trial judge:

McArdle v. New York City Housing Authority

Court Discusses Whether the Judge Acted Prudently in Exercising his Discussion

The plaintiff who was the parent of an infant brought an action to recover damages for false imprisonment and assault committed by the defendant. The infant, who was a 19 years old, was arrested by a security guard employed by the defendant on July 15, 1972 at 12:30 A.M. The security guard charged the infant with driving an automobile while intoxicated

People v. Vargulik

Court Discusses Whether Failure to Comply with Discovery Demand Should Result in Suppression of Chemical Results

The defendant was indicted for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, vehicular manslaughter and criminal negligent homicide. The defendant was the driver of a motor vehicle that killed a passenger in her car after she crashed into a tree. Three beer cans were recovered from the car, one unopened and two empty cans. The defendant went to the hospital to receive treatment and was later arrested. She consented to an Alco-Sensor” test where .15 percent blood alcohol content was recorded. The defendant requested an omnibus motion to suppress the results of the blood test on the ground that there was insufficient evidence for probable cause in the absence of the chemical test. The People attempted to introduce evidence that indicated that the defendant had consumed alcohol which was probable cause for the arrest after the results of the blood test. The defendant’s Queens County Criminal Attorney objected to the introduction of the blood test into evidence because of the prosecution’s failure to provide the report of the breath test to the defendant in response to the discovery demand, pursuant to section 240.40 of the Criminal Procedure Law. This resulted in the court concluding that the DWI test result was prohibited from being introduced into evidence. The People appealed the decision.

Continue reading

People v Noreiga

Court Discusses Whether the Warrantless Search of the Defendant’s Motor Vehicle was Legal

The defendant was arrested and charged with two counts of driving while intoxicated, one count of failing to obey a traffic control device and one count of consumption or possession of alcoholic beverage in a motor vehicle.

People v. Blajeski

Court Discusses Whether there was Probable Cause to Suspect the Defendant for Driving While Intoxicated DWI

The defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated after parking in a drug prone area. The defendant was found drug prone area with in a vehicle with two other males while the engine was running at a curb. The police observed that the defendant had blood shot eyes, slurred speech and his breath smelled of alcohol after he was questioned by the police. The defendant was also found in possession of cocaine and diazepam, a prescription drug after being searched. The Supreme Court suppressed the findings of the search due to lack of probable cause to suspect that he was participating in criminal activity. The People appealed the decision.

Continue reading

People v. Niedzwiecki

Court Discusses Whether a Polish Immigrant Received Clear and Unambiguous Refusal Warning

The defendant was a polish immigrant who was arrested by the police for DWI driving while intoxicated. The defendant was initially stopped by the police after he operated his vehicle without his headlights and was weaving while driving. The defendant was read his Miranda rights in English even though it was evident that he had a strong foreign accent. The defendant was asked to submit to a breathalyzer test and requested the assistance of a Polish “translocator”. The criminal defendant refused to submit to a breathalyzer test and later requested to supress his refusal because the warning was not unequivocal in a language that he could understand.

Continue reading

People v. Blackman

Court Discusses Section 160.50 of the CPL to Determine Whether the Defendant’s Record should be Sealed

The defendant requested to seal her record and to return her prints pursuant to section 160.50 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated DWI and driving while intoxicated in violation of section 1192(3) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The defendant was also charged with disorderly conduct, a violation of Section 240.20 of the Penal Law which she pled guilty to with the imposition of a conditional discharge sentence. The defendant asserted that her fingerprints and photograph be returned when both were taken when she was charged for driving while intoxicated since she pled guilty to a non-printable offense of disorderly conduct. The defendant stated that she was entitled to the benefit of section 160.50 of the CPL as the criminal proceeding was terminated in her favor. The defendant relied on the cases of People v. Flores, 393 N.Y.S.2d 664, People v. Miller, 394 N.Y.S.2d 1006, and Dwyer v. Guido, 54 A.D.2d 956, which returned the accused fingerprints, photographs and sealed the records.

Continue reading

People v. Trujillo

Court Discusses Whether the Sentenced Imposed by the Court on a Persistent Offender was Excessive

The defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated and sentenced to definite term of imprisonment of one year based on his criminal history and probation violation. The defendant had a long criminal history beginning from 1979 where he was charged with assault in the second degree, grand larceny, and leaving the scene of an accident, he was sentenced to period of probation as he was a youthful offender. In 1983 he was convicted of the class “C” felony of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentenced to a sentence of five years of probation to run concurrent with a six-month term of imprisonment. In 1984 he was arrested for driving while intoxicated on three separate occasions but was convicted of one count of driving while intoxicated DWI and one count of driving while impaired. He received a sentence of probation and a fine. The defendant appealed the sentenced imposed of one year imprisonment for driving while intoxicated.

Continue reading