People v. Ramirez (Yakaira)

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ramirez (Yakaira)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedSeptember 25, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51516(U)

StatusPublished

This text of People v. Ramirez (Yakaira) (People v. Ramirez (Yakaira)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Ramirez (Yakaira), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Yakaira Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Curtis Farber, J.), rendered December 4, 2017, after a jury trial, convicting her of driving while ability impaired by alcohol, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Curtis Farber, J.), rendered December 4, 2017, affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of driving while ability impaired by alcohol (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[1]) was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), which included the police officers' eye-witness testimony that defendant drove in an unsafe manner, and upon being stopped, had an odor of alcohol on her breath and an unsteady gait; the videotape of defendant's unsatisfactory performance of physical coordination tests; and the results of the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test device administered at the precinct, which measured defendant's blood alcohol content at .07 percent (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195[2][c]; People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419, 426-427 [1979], appeal dismissed 446 US 901 [1980]; People v Taylor, 104 AD3d 603 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 947 [2013]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying, without further inquiry, counsel's eve-of-trial motion to be relieved, since counsel failed to establish good cause (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93 [2010]; People v Linares, 2 NY3d 507, 511 [2004] ["good cause does not exist when defendants are guilty of delaying tactics or where, on the eve of trial, disagreements over trial strategy generate discord"]). Here, defendant's refusal to follow counsel's sound advice to accept the favorable plea offer did not rise to the level of good cause for removal (see People v Alvarez, 143 AD3d 543, 543-544 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1142 [2017]; People v Monfiston, 54 AD3d 597 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 856 [2008]; People v England, 19 AD3d 154, 155 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 805 [2005]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: September 25, 2019

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Yakaira Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Curtis Farber, J.), rendered December 4, 2017, after a jury trial, convicting her of driving while ability impaired by alcohol, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Curtis Farber, J.), rendered December 4, 2017, affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of driving while ability impaired by alcohol (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[1]) was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), which included the police officers' eye-witness testimony that defendant drove in an unsafe manner, and upon being stopped, had an odor of alcohol on her breath and an unsteady gait; the videotape of defendant's unsatisfactory performance of physical coordination tests; and the results of the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test device administered at the precinct, which measured defendant's blood alcohol content at .07 percent (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195[2][c]; People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419, 426-427 [1979], appeal dismissed 446 US 901 [1980]; People v Taylor, 104 AD3d 603 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 947 [2013]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying, without further inquiry, counsel's eve-of-trial motion to be relieved, since counsel failed to establish good cause (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93 [2010]; People v Linares, 2 NY3d 507, 511 [2004] ["good cause does not exist when defendants are guilty of delaying tactics or where, on the eve of trial, disagreements over trial strategy generate discord"]). Here, defendant's refusal to follow counsel's sound advice to accept the favorable plea offer did not rise to the level of good cause for removal (see People v Alvarez, 143 AD3d 543, 543-544 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1142 [2017]; People v Monfiston, 54 AD3d 597 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 856 [2008]; People v England, 19 AD3d 154, 155 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 805 [2005]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: September 25, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People v. Ramirez (Yakaira), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ramirez-yakaira-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

I concur I concur I concur

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack