People v. Capia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Capia

271 A.D.2d 543, 706 N.Y.S.2d 356, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4001

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

DecidedApril 10, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 543 (People v. Capia) 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. Capia, 271 A.D.2d 543, 706 N.Y.S.2d 356, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4001 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), rendered September 29, 1998, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Mertz, 68 NY2d 136, 146). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence established that his breathalyzer test, which revealed a blood alcohol content in excess of the legal limit (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2]), was administered within two hours of his arrest (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 [2] [a] [1]). Altman, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Schmidt, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), rendered September 29, 1998, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Mertz, 68 NY2d 136, 146). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence established that his breathalyzer test, which revealed a blood alcohol content in excess of the legal limit (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2]), was administered within two hours of his arrest (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 [2] [a] [1]). Altman, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 543, 706 N.Y.S.2d 356, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-capia-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack