People v. Ariza (Juan)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedMarch 26, 2018
Docket2018 NYSlipOp 50385(U)
StatusPublished

This text of People v. Ariza (Juan) (People v. Ariza (Juan)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Ariza (Juan), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion



The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Juan Ariza, Defendant-Appellant.


Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Rita M. Mella, J.), rendered April 19, 2012, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of driving while ability impaired, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Rita M. Mella, J.), rendered April 19, 2012, is affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of driving while ability impaired (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[1]) was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, including its assessment of police testimony about defendant's condition upon his arrest (see People v Reyes, 136 AD3d 443 [2016]).

Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court did not err in permitting the arresting officer to testify regarding a horizontal gaze nystagmus field sobriety test (HGN test) administered to defendant without first conducting a Frye hearing. "'[HGN] tests have been found to be accepted within the scientific community as a reliable indicator of intoxication and, thus, a court may take judicial notice of the HGN test's acceptability'" (People v Julius, 93 AD3d 1296, 1297 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 963 [2012]; see People v Tetrault, 53 AD3d 558, 558—559 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 835 [2008]; People v Hammond, 35 AD3d 905, 907 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 946 [2007]; People v Grune, 12 AD3d 944, 945 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 831 [2005]). Additionally, the People laid a proper foundation establishing the officer's qualifications to administer the test and the techniques employed (see People v Julius, 93 AD3d at 1297).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 26, 2018

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Danielson
880 N.E.2d 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 2007)
People v. Reyes
136 A.D.3d 443 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Grune
12 A.D.3d 944 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Hammond
35 A.D.3d 905 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Tetrault
53 A.D.3d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Julius
93 A.D.3d 1296 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
People v. Ariza (Juan), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ariza-juan-nyappterm-2018.