People v. Brunelle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brunelle

255 A.D.2d 331, 681 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11601

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 331 (People v. Brunelle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State 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. Brunelle, 255 A.D.2d 331, 681 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11601 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Braatz, J.), rendered December 3, 1997, convicting him of driving while ability impaired under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (1) and driving while intoxicated; per se under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Putnam County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The defendant’s contention that there was insufficient foundation for admission of the breathalyzer results into evidence is without merit. The test was administered by a qualified operator and certificates of calibration, analysis for ampules, and simulator solution were admitted into evidence (see, People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699, 700; People v Gower, 42 NY2d 117; People v Sherwood, 160 AD2d 1203). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Thompson and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Braatz, J.), rendered December 3, 1997, convicting him of driving while ability impaired under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (1) and driving while intoxicated; per se under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Putnam County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The defendant’s contention that there was insufficient foundation for admission of the breathalyzer results into evidence is without merit. The test was administered by a qualified operator and certificates of calibration, analysis for ampules, and simulator solution were admitted into evidence (see, People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699, 700; People v Gower, 42 NY2d 117; People v Sherwood, 160 AD2d 1203). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Thompson and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 331, 681 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brunelle-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack