Opinion
802 TP 23-00659
11-17-2023
In the Matter of Kristen JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES APPEAL BOARD, Respondent.
LEONARD CRIMINAL DEFENSE GROUP, PLLC, ROME (JOHN G. LEONARD OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (ALEXANDRIA TWINEM OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
LEONARD CRIMINAL DEFENSE GROUP, PLLC, ROME (JOHN G. LEONARD OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.
LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (ALEXANDRIA TWINEM OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CURRAN, MONTOUR, OGDEN, AND NOWAK, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the determination revoking her driver's license based on her refusal to submit to a chemical test following her arrest for driving while ability impaired by drugs. We confirm the determination.
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Thompson v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. , 170 A.D.3d 1657, 1657, 94 N.Y.S.3d 916 [4th Dept. 2019] ). The arresting officer's testimony at the hearing established that he responded to multiple calls that petitioner's vehicle was being driven erratically and across grass lawns and that, upon arrival, he found petitioner unresponsive in the driver's seat of the still-running vehicle. Once petitioner was roused, her speech was very slow and slurred. We conclude that the arresting officer's testimony at the hearing established that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner had been operating her vehicle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (see Matter of Malvestuto v. Schroeder , 207 A.D.3d 1245, 1245-1246, 170 N.Y.S.3d 792 [4th Dept. 2022] ).
We reject petitioner's contention that the arresting officer's testimony was insufficient to establish that the refusal warnings were given in clear and unequivocal language. The arresting officer testified that he issued the standardized warning following petitioner's arrest (see Matter of Dennstedt v. Appeals Bd. of Admin. Adjudication Bur. , 206 A.D.3d 1693, 1694, 170 N.Y.S.3d 435 [4th Dept. 2022] ).