People v. Ayala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ayala

87 A.D.3d 926, 929 N.Y.2d 852

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 27, 2011·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress breathalyzer test results. The two-hour limitation contained in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (2) (a) applies only to deemed consent and does not apply where, as here, a defendant expressly and voluntarily consents to the test (People v Atkins, 85 NY2d 1007 [1995]). Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of her consent is unpreserved and without merit.

The reliability of the test results was an issue for trial and was not a proper issue for the suppression hearing. By pleading guilty, defendant forfeited appellate review of that issue (see People v Parilla, 8 NY3d 654, 659 [2007]). Concur — Andrias, J.P, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Richter and Román, JJ.

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

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress breathalyzer test results. The two-hour limitation contained in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (2) (a) applies only to deemed consent and does not apply where, as here, a defendant expressly and voluntarily consents to the test (People v Atkins, 85 NY2d 1007 [1995]). Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of her consent is unpreserved and without merit.

The reliability of the test results was an issue for trial and was not a proper issue for the suppression hearing. By pleading guilty, defendant forfeited appellate review of that issue (see People v Parilla, 8 NY3d 654, 659 [2007]). Concur — Andrias, J.P, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Richter and Román, JJ.

People v. Ayala, 87 A.D.3d 926, 929 N.Y.2d 852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

87 A.D.3d 926 (People v. Ayala) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related