People v. Monahan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Monahan

295 A.D.2d 626, 744 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6749

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

DecidedJune 24, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 626 (People v. Monahan) 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. Monahan, 295 A.D.2d 626, 744 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk [627]*627County (Copertino, J.), rendered September 7, 1999, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol as a felony, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

“It is well settled that a defendant who has been arrested for driving while intoxicated, but not yet formally charged in court, generally has the right to consult with a lawyer before deciding whether to consent to a [breathalyzer] test, if he [or she] requests the assistance of counsel and no danger of delay is posed” (People v Kearney, 261 AD2d 638; see People v Gursey, 22 NY2d 224, 229; People v O’Rama, 162 AD2d 727, read on other grounds 78 NY2d 270). However, a defendant does not have the “absolute right to refuse the test until a lawyer reaches the scene” (People v Gursey, supra at 229). If a defendant refuses to take a breathalyzer test, evidence of such refusal is admissible at trial if the defendant was given clear and unequivocal warning of the effect of the refusal to submit to the test (see People v Thomas, 46 NY2d 100, 108).

The defendant’s contention that his request to speak to an attorney should not be construed as a refusal to consent to a breathalyzer test is without merit (see Matter of Boyce v Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 215 AD2d 476, 477; People v Peabody, 206 AD2d 754, 755; Matter of O’Brien v Melton, 61 AD2d 1091). Moreover, the record indicates that the defendant was accurately apprised of the consequences of his refusal to submit to the breathalyzer test (see People v Thomas, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Santucci, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Adams, 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, Suffolk [627]*627County (Copertino, J.), rendered September 7, 1999, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol as a felony, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

“It is well settled that a defendant who has been arrested for driving while intoxicated, but not yet formally charged in court, generally has the right to consult with a lawyer before deciding whether to consent to a [breathalyzer] test, if he [or she] requests the assistance of counsel and no danger of delay is posed” (People v Kearney, 261 AD2d 638; see People v Gursey, 22 NY2d 224, 229; People v O’Rama, 162 AD2d 727, read on other grounds 78 NY2d 270). However, a defendant does not have the “absolute right to refuse the test until a lawyer reaches the scene” (People v Gursey, supra at 229). If a defendant refuses to take a breathalyzer test, evidence of such refusal is admissible at trial if the defendant was given clear and unequivocal warning of the effect of the refusal to submit to the test (see People v Thomas, 46 NY2d 100, 108).

The defendant’s contention that his request to speak to an attorney should not be construed as a refusal to consent to a breathalyzer test is without merit (see Matter of Boyce v Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 215 AD2d 476, 477; People v Peabody, 206 AD2d 754, 755; Matter of O’Brien v Melton, 61 AD2d 1091). Moreover, the record indicates that the defendant was accurately apprised of the consequences of his refusal to submit to the breathalyzer test (see People v Thomas, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Santucci, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 626, 744 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-monahan-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack