NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2218-23
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
PATRICIA LAZZARINI,
Defendant-Appellant. _______________________
Submitted May 28, 2025 – Decided August 11, 2025
Before Judges Firko and Augostini.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Municipal Appeal No. 23- 09.
Caruso Smith Picini, PC, attorneys for appellant (Annette Verdesco, on the briefs).
John P. McDonald, Somerset County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Jessica L. Bosland, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM Defendant Patricia Lazzarini appeals from her convictions for driving
while intoxicated (DWI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, based on observation, and failing to
maintain lanes, N.J.S.A. 39:4-88, following a trial de novo in the Law Division.
Having reviewed the record and the parties' arguments in light of the applicable
legal standards, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Angela
F. Borkowski in her comprehensive decision.
I.
The relevant evidence was set forth in Judge Borkowski's thirty-three-
page decision. We summarize the salient facts.
At around 1:00 a.m. on January 30, 2021, Branchburg Township Police
Department Officer Michael Lester, while on routine patrol, saw defendant
driving her car "at a very slow rate of speed" on Route 202. Officer Lester began
following defendant and saw defendant's car failing to maintain its lane, crossing
over into the other lane. Based on his observations, Officer Lester pulled
defendant over.
While speaking with defendant, Officer Lester smelled an odor of alcohol
coming from her and noticed her eyes were watery and bloodshot. In response
to the officer's question, defendant admitted she drank a few vodka and club
soda cocktails while at Dave and Busters that evening in Wayne. Officer Lester
A-2218-23 2 asked defendant "pre-exit" questions, such as to recite the alphabet from the
letter "E" to "P" without singing and to count backwards from "93" to "73."
Officer Lester's engagement with defendant was recorded on his patrol car's
motor vehicle recording (MVR). As revealed in the MVR, during the
questioning, defendant advised Officer Lester that she previously had COVID -
19 and that she had an aneurysm.
Officer Lester then asked defendant to exit her car to complete the
standardized field sobriety tests, which included the walk-and-turn and the one-
leg-stand. Before beginning the sobriety tests, defendant again told Officer
Lester she had an aneurysm. Officer Lester testified that there was no indication
defendant could not perform the sobriety tests due to her medical condition.
Defendant performed poorly on these two tests. On the walk-and-turn
test, defendant began the test before Officer Lester finished giving her the
instructions, and she stepped off the line during the test. During the one-leg-
stand-test, defendant lost her balance, raised her arms higher than permitted, and
put her foot down before she was instructed to do so. The tests were performed
in front of the vehicle, so they were not captured on the MVR.
While at the scene, Officer Kevin Conforti, trained and certified on the
standardized field sobriety tests, conducted the horizontal gaze nystagmus
A-2218-23 3 (HGN) test. While conducting the test, Officer Conforti told defendant she was
not looking at the light, and defendant responded by advising Officer Conforti
that she had an aneurysm, but she declined medical treatment. Officer Conforti
advised Officer Lester that he believed defendant was under the influence of
either alcohol or narcotics.
Under the totality of the circumstances, which included defendant's poor
performance on these tests and Officer Lester's earlier observations, defendant
was arrested for DWI and transported to police headquarters.
After processing defendant, the officers attempted to perform an Alcotest
on her but were unable to get a reading on the first two attempts. Although
defendant initially agreed to try to perform the test a third time, she ultimately
refused. Officer Conforti did not read defendant the second section of the
refusal warning. Defendant was charged with DWI, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, failure to
maintain lanes, N.J.S.A. 39:4-88, and refusal to submit to a breath test, N.J.S.A.
39:4-50.4a.
Trial was held in Branchburg Municipal Court over the course of nine
days between April 29, 2022 and December 7, 2022. At the close of the State's
case, defendant moved for judgment of acquittal on the refusal charge, which
A-2218-23 4 the municipal judge granted. On February 13, 2023, defendant was found guilty
of DWI and failure to maintain lanes.
Defendant filed for trial de novo in the Law Division, appealing the DWI
and failure to maintain lanes. After oral argument, the judge reserved decision.
On March 8, 2024, the judge issued a thorough written opinion upholding
defendant's convictions and imposing the same sentence as the municipal judge.
The judge detailed her findings, explaining her credibility determinations,
and concluding that the municipal judge's "determination was supported by
sufficient credible evidence in the record," and therefore, the judge found no
reason to deviate from the municipal judge's decision.
The judge rejected defendant's expert witness's challenge to the field
sobriety test and the instructions given. The judge found that the incomplete
instructions, "although affecting the weight to be given these tests, did not affect
the outcome of [defendant's] performance." The judge found the error was not
a material error, affecting the outcome.
The judge also rejected defendant's contention that her migraine or aura
caused her to perform poorly on these tests. The judge noted that defendant's
performance on the tests was only one of "numerous circumstances" that
"prove[d] her intoxication." Although the judge found defendant's treating
A-2218-23 5 neurologist credible, the court concluded that his testimony did not establish
reasonable doubt as to defendant's intoxication. Rather, the judge found
insufficient evidence to suggest that defendant was suffering from symptoms of
a pre-existing medical condition. Moreover, defendant's physician was not
present on the evening of the incident, did not observe or examine defendant on
that evening, and therefore, was unable to confirm what, if any, symptoms
defendant was experiencing. The judge was satisfied that the record
demonstrated defendant's behavior on the evening of the incident was not
consistent with a person experiencing a migraine.
The judge also was not persuaded by the testimony of defendant's friend,
who was with her on the evening of this incident and testified that defendant did
not appear to be under the influence. The judge found that defendant's friend's
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2218-23
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
PATRICIA LAZZARINI,
Defendant-Appellant. _______________________
Submitted May 28, 2025 – Decided August 11, 2025
Before Judges Firko and Augostini.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Municipal Appeal No. 23- 09.
Caruso Smith Picini, PC, attorneys for appellant (Annette Verdesco, on the briefs).
John P. McDonald, Somerset County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Jessica L. Bosland, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM Defendant Patricia Lazzarini appeals from her convictions for driving
while intoxicated (DWI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, based on observation, and failing to
maintain lanes, N.J.S.A. 39:4-88, following a trial de novo in the Law Division.
Having reviewed the record and the parties' arguments in light of the applicable
legal standards, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Angela
F. Borkowski in her comprehensive decision.
I.
The relevant evidence was set forth in Judge Borkowski's thirty-three-
page decision. We summarize the salient facts.
At around 1:00 a.m. on January 30, 2021, Branchburg Township Police
Department Officer Michael Lester, while on routine patrol, saw defendant
driving her car "at a very slow rate of speed" on Route 202. Officer Lester began
following defendant and saw defendant's car failing to maintain its lane, crossing
over into the other lane. Based on his observations, Officer Lester pulled
defendant over.
While speaking with defendant, Officer Lester smelled an odor of alcohol
coming from her and noticed her eyes were watery and bloodshot. In response
to the officer's question, defendant admitted she drank a few vodka and club
soda cocktails while at Dave and Busters that evening in Wayne. Officer Lester
A-2218-23 2 asked defendant "pre-exit" questions, such as to recite the alphabet from the
letter "E" to "P" without singing and to count backwards from "93" to "73."
Officer Lester's engagement with defendant was recorded on his patrol car's
motor vehicle recording (MVR). As revealed in the MVR, during the
questioning, defendant advised Officer Lester that she previously had COVID -
19 and that she had an aneurysm.
Officer Lester then asked defendant to exit her car to complete the
standardized field sobriety tests, which included the walk-and-turn and the one-
leg-stand. Before beginning the sobriety tests, defendant again told Officer
Lester she had an aneurysm. Officer Lester testified that there was no indication
defendant could not perform the sobriety tests due to her medical condition.
Defendant performed poorly on these two tests. On the walk-and-turn
test, defendant began the test before Officer Lester finished giving her the
instructions, and she stepped off the line during the test. During the one-leg-
stand-test, defendant lost her balance, raised her arms higher than permitted, and
put her foot down before she was instructed to do so. The tests were performed
in front of the vehicle, so they were not captured on the MVR.
While at the scene, Officer Kevin Conforti, trained and certified on the
standardized field sobriety tests, conducted the horizontal gaze nystagmus
A-2218-23 3 (HGN) test. While conducting the test, Officer Conforti told defendant she was
not looking at the light, and defendant responded by advising Officer Conforti
that she had an aneurysm, but she declined medical treatment. Officer Conforti
advised Officer Lester that he believed defendant was under the influence of
either alcohol or narcotics.
Under the totality of the circumstances, which included defendant's poor
performance on these tests and Officer Lester's earlier observations, defendant
was arrested for DWI and transported to police headquarters.
After processing defendant, the officers attempted to perform an Alcotest
on her but were unable to get a reading on the first two attempts. Although
defendant initially agreed to try to perform the test a third time, she ultimately
refused. Officer Conforti did not read defendant the second section of the
refusal warning. Defendant was charged with DWI, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, failure to
maintain lanes, N.J.S.A. 39:4-88, and refusal to submit to a breath test, N.J.S.A.
39:4-50.4a.
Trial was held in Branchburg Municipal Court over the course of nine
days between April 29, 2022 and December 7, 2022. At the close of the State's
case, defendant moved for judgment of acquittal on the refusal charge, which
A-2218-23 4 the municipal judge granted. On February 13, 2023, defendant was found guilty
of DWI and failure to maintain lanes.
Defendant filed for trial de novo in the Law Division, appealing the DWI
and failure to maintain lanes. After oral argument, the judge reserved decision.
On March 8, 2024, the judge issued a thorough written opinion upholding
defendant's convictions and imposing the same sentence as the municipal judge.
The judge detailed her findings, explaining her credibility determinations,
and concluding that the municipal judge's "determination was supported by
sufficient credible evidence in the record," and therefore, the judge found no
reason to deviate from the municipal judge's decision.
The judge rejected defendant's expert witness's challenge to the field
sobriety test and the instructions given. The judge found that the incomplete
instructions, "although affecting the weight to be given these tests, did not affect
the outcome of [defendant's] performance." The judge found the error was not
a material error, affecting the outcome.
The judge also rejected defendant's contention that her migraine or aura
caused her to perform poorly on these tests. The judge noted that defendant's
performance on the tests was only one of "numerous circumstances" that
"prove[d] her intoxication." Although the judge found defendant's treating
A-2218-23 5 neurologist credible, the court concluded that his testimony did not establish
reasonable doubt as to defendant's intoxication. Rather, the judge found
insufficient evidence to suggest that defendant was suffering from symptoms of
a pre-existing medical condition. Moreover, defendant's physician was not
present on the evening of the incident, did not observe or examine defendant on
that evening, and therefore, was unable to confirm what, if any, symptoms
defendant was experiencing. The judge was satisfied that the record
demonstrated defendant's behavior on the evening of the incident was not
consistent with a person experiencing a migraine.
The judge also was not persuaded by the testimony of defendant's friend,
who was with her on the evening of this incident and testified that defendant did
not appear to be under the influence. The judge found that defendant's friend's
testimony "add[ed] little to the ultimate determination as to whether [defendant]
was capable of driving" because her friend did not see her drive after leaving
Dave and Buster's that evening.
The judge found the testimony of Officers Lester and Conforti credible
and concurred with the municipal judge's determination that defendant was
"highly incredible." Based on the substantial, credible evidence, the judge
A-2218-23 6 concluded that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was
guilty of failing to maintain lanes and DWI.
II.
On appeal, defendant contends that her convictions should be overturned
because the trial court erred in two ways by: (1) concluding that the officers
had reasonable suspicion to request defendant exit her vehicle and that there was
probable cause to arrest defendant; and (2) finding defendant guilty because the
evidence was insufficient to establish her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and
the trial court unlawfully shifted the burden of proof. Defendant challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence to support the municipal judge's ruling that the
officer had reasonable suspicion to request defendant to exit her vehicle and
perform the field sobriety tests. Defendant next argues that there was no
probable cause for her arrest. Finally, defendant contends there was insufficient
evidence to sustain the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the DWI
conviction.
III.
"[A]ppellate review of [municipal court] convictions is exceedingly
narrow." State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 470 (1999). Appellate review of a
municipal court conviction focuses on whether there is sufficient credible
A-2218-23 7 evidence in the record to support the judge's findings. Id. at 471 (citing State v.
Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 161-62 (1965)). Thus, an appellate court does not
undertake an independent assessment of the evidence. Ibid. This rule of
deference is more persuasive where both the municipal and Law Division
judges, as here, concur on the findings of fact and credibility determinations.
Id. at 474. "Under the two-court rule, appellate courts ordinarily should not
undertake to alter concurrent findings of facts and credibility determinations
made by two lower courts absent a very obvious and exceptional showing of
error." Ibid. (citing Midler v. Heinowitz, 10 N.J. 123, 128-29 (1952)). However,
the trial court's legal rulings are considered de novo. Id. at 470 (holding that
appellate review of a de novo conviction in the Law Division following a
municipal court appeal is "exceedingly narrow").
Our review of the record confirms that Judge Borkowski relied on the
testimony of Officers Lester and Conforti with respect to their observations of
defendant in the early morning hours of January 30, 2021 and her performance
of the field sobriety tests. The judge conducted her own review of the MVR,
citing to it repeatedly in her decision. Applying the governing legal principles,
from the judge's findings of fact and credibility determinations. We are also
satisfied the judge did not err in the legal conclusions she drew from those
A-2218-23 8 factual findings. Accordingly, we affirm defendant's convictions for DWI and
failure to maintain lanes.
Affirmed.
A-2218-23 9