People v. Carbon (Christine)

68 Misc. 3d 129(A), 2020 NY Slip Op 50950(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: August 20, 2020
• Docket: 2019-957 D CR
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

People v Carbon (2020 NY Slip Op 50950(U)) [*1]

People v Carbon (Christine)

2020 NY Slip Op 50950(U) [68 Misc 3d 129(A)]

Decided on August 20, 2020

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on August 20, 2020

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : BRUCE E. TOLBERT, J.P., THOMAS A. ADAMS, JERRY GARGUILO, JJ
2019-957 D CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Christine Carbon, Appellant.

McCabe Coleman Ventosa & Patterson PLLC (David L. Steinberg of counsel), for appellant. Dutchess County District Attorney (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of conviction of the Justice Court of the Town of LaGrange, Dutchess County (Stephen O'Hare, J.), rendered February 5, 2019. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her guilty plea, of driving while impaired, and imposed sentence. The appeal brings up for review an order of that court (Michael G. Hayes, J.) dated December 31, 2018, after a hearing, denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was charged, in separate simplified traffic informations, with common law driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]), driving while intoxicated (per se) (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2]), failing to dim headlights (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [3]), and failing to signal within 100 feet before turning (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [b]), respectively. A limited Dunaway/Ingle hearing was conducted, following which the Justice Court (Michael G. Hayes, J.) denied defendant's motion to suppress, finding the arresting officer's testimony to be credible in all respects, but holding that defendant's use of her high beams did not provide the arresting officer with probable cause to stop defendant's vehicle. A disposition was subsequently reached, and defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of driving while impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]) in full satisfaction of all charges.

On appeal, defendant contends that the vehicle stop was unlawful. The hearing court [*2]found the arresting officer's testimony to be credible, a finding that must be accorded deference unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Bookman, 131 AD3d 1258 [2015], affd 28 NY3d 967 [2016]). Upon our review of the record, we find no reason to discredit the arresting officer's testimony that he had also observed defendant engage her turn signal approximately 50 feet before making a right turn prior to his stopping defendant's vehicle. The arresting officer's testimony described conduct which violated the mandatory requirement of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 (b) that "[a] signal of intention to turn right or left when required shall be given continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled by the vehicle before turning." It is well settled that "a police officer who can articulate credible facts establishing reasonable cause to believe that someone has violated a law has established a reasonable basis to effectuate a [traffic] stop" (People v Guthrie, 25 NY3d 130, 133 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Consequently, the traffic stop was lawful.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

TOLBERT, J.P., ADAMS and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: August 20, 2020