People v. Shroeder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shroeder

229 A.D.2d 918, 646 N.Y.S.2d 488

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1996

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 229 A.D.2d 918 (People v. Shroeder) 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. Shroeder, 229 A.D.2d 918, 646 N.Y.S.2d 488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and two counts of felony driving while intoxicated, defendant contends that the People failed to prove probable cause for his arrest because no testimony was adduced at the probable cause hearing identifying him as the operator of the vehicle. That issue is not preserved for our review because defendant never denied his status as the operator of the vehicle before the suppression court (see, People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029, 1031; People v Curtis, 186 AD2d 994). In any event, that contention is belied by the record, which establishes that the arresting officer identified defendant as the operator of the vehicle that he stopped for Vehicle and Traffic Law violations. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J.—Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and two counts of felony driving while intoxicated, defendant contends that the People failed to prove probable cause for his arrest because no testimony was adduced at the probable cause hearing identifying him as the operator of the vehicle. That issue is not preserved for our review because defendant never denied his status as the operator of the vehicle before the suppression court (see, People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029, 1031; People v Curtis, 186 AD2d 994). In any event, that contention is belied by the record, which establishes that the arresting officer identified defendant as the operator of the vehicle that he stopped for Vehicle and Traffic Law violations. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J.—Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D.2d 918, 646 N.Y.S.2d 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shroeder-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack