Wilkinson v. Adduci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wilkinson v. Adduci

176 A.D.2d 1233, 576 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13943

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 176 A.D.2d 1233 (Wilkinson v. Adduci) 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

Wilkinson v. Adduci, 176 A.D.2d 1233, 576 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13943 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The determination that petitioner refused to consent to a chemical test to determine the amount of alcohol in his blood is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner has no constitutional right to an attorney at that stage of the proceeding (see, People v Shaw, 72 NY2d 1032, 1033) and may not condition his consent to take the test on first consulting with the attorney of his choice (see, Matter of Smith v Passidomo, 120 AD2d 599). Here, petitioner refused to submit to the test until it was too late to administer it effectively (cf., People v Gursey, 22 NY2d 224, 229). His subsequent consent was irrelevant (see, Matter of Lundin v Hults, 29 AD2d 581). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of [1234]*1234Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J.) Present — Callahan, A. P. J., Denman, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

— Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The determination that petitioner refused to consent to a chemical test to determine the amount of alcohol in his blood is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner has no constitutional right to an attorney at that stage of the proceeding (see, People v Shaw, 72 NY2d 1032, 1033) and may not condition his consent to take the test on first consulting with the attorney of his choice (see, Matter of Smith v Passidomo, 120 AD2d 599). Here, petitioner refused to submit to the test until it was too late to administer it effectively (cf., People v Gursey, 22 NY2d 224, 229). His subsequent consent was irrelevant (see, Matter of Lundin v Hults, 29 AD2d 581). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of [1234]*1234Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J.) Present — Callahan, A. P. J., Denman, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 1233, 576 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkinson-v-adduci-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack