People v. Gomez (Teodoro)

87 Misc. 3d 133(A), 2025 NY Slip Op 51944(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: December 11, 2025
• Docket: 570314/19
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

People v Gomez (2025 NY Slip Op 51944(U)) [*1]

People v Gomez (Teodoro)

2025 NY Slip Op 51944(U) [87 Misc 3d 133(A)]

Decided on December 11, 2025

Appellate Term, First 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 11, 2025

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Brigantti, J.P., Perez, Alpert, JJ.
570314/19

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Teodoro Salgado Gomez, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Steven J. Hornstein, J. at suppression hearing; Margaret W. Martin, J. at plea and sentencing), rendered April 17, 2019, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Steven J. Hornstein, J. at suppression hearing; Margaret W. Martin, J. at plea and sentencing), rendered April 17, 2019, affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The testimony of the arresting officer that he arrived at the scene of a three car accident, observed defendant's watery eyes and slurred words; and that defendant admitted to him that he drove one of the vehicles and had been drinking, was sufficient to establish probable cause for defendant's arrest for driving while intoxicated (see People v Johnson, 140 AD3d 978, 979 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 931 [2016]). The officer's questioning of defendant at the scene to ascertain pedigree information and investigate the circumstances surrounding the accident was investigatory and not custodial (see People v Steinhilber, 48 AD3d 958, 959 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 871 [2008]).

Defendant's contention that the results of the breathalyzer test should have been suppressed is without merit. The record reflects that defendant expressly and voluntarily consented to the administration of the test (see People v Badia, 130 AD3d 744, 745 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1085 [2015]). Defendant consented verbally and then signed the "Intoxicated Driver Examination - Blood" consent form. Defendant also confirmed his consent to taking the test during his conversation with the Spanish speaking nurse who performed the blood draw at the hospital. Although defendant was in custody at the hospital, there was no evidence to suggest that the officers engaged in any form of implicit or overt coercion in securing defendant's consent or that defendant was so intoxicated that he was unable to understand what he was being asked to do or to consent to having it done (see People v Mojica, 62 AD3d 100, 114 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 856 [2009]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 11, 2025