People v. Jacobsen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jacobsen

252 A.D.2d 507, 675 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8003

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 252 A.D.2d 507 (People v. Jacobsen) 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. Jacobsen, 252 A.D.2d 507, 675 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8003 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Braatz, J.), rendered March 13, 1997, as amended April 1, 1998, convicting him of driving while under the influence of alcohol (two counts), violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d) (1), and violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 (b), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the results of his breathalyzer test should have been suppressed because there was insufficient evidence of calibration. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858, 859) and, in any event, is without merit (see, People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699; People v Sherwood, 160 AD2d 1203).

Because the defendant was resentenced, his remaining contention is academic. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Florio, 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 March 13, 1997, as amended April 1, 1998, convicting him of driving while under the influence of alcohol (two counts), violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d) (1), and violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 (b), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the results of his breathalyzer test should have been suppressed because there was insufficient evidence of calibration. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858, 859) and, in any event, is without merit (see, People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699; People v Sherwood, 160 AD2d 1203).

Because the defendant was resentenced, his remaining contention is academic. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 507, 675 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jacobsen-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack