You are here: / / SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S DRIVER’S...
,

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S DRIVER’S LICENSE FOR REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST; TROOPER DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE PETITIONER OPERATED HIS MOTORCYCLE UNDER THE INFLUENCE.

The Second Department annulled the determination by the Department of Motor Vehicles that petitioner’s license was properly revoked for refusing to submit to a chemical blood-alcohol test. Petitioner had an accident while riding his motorcycle which, he alleged, was caused by a coyote running into his bike. No other vehicles were involved. The trooper who charged petitioner with driving while intoxicated did not witness the accident or conduct any sobriety tests. The trooper based the charge solely on detecting the odor of alcohol on petitioner’s breath two hours after the accident at the hospital. The Second Department determined substantial evidence did not support the Department’s finding the trooper had reasonable grounds to believe petitioner was operating the motorcycle while under the influence:

 

As a prerequisite to the chemical test, the Trooper had to have reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was operating his motorcycle while under the influence of alcohol (see Vehicle Traffic Law § 1194[2]). Reasonable grounds are to be determined on the basis of the totality of the circumstances (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194[2][a][3]). Here, the Trooper did not witness the circumstances leading to the accident or the accident itself, and his report states that no field sobriety tests were conducted at the scene. Other than the statement in the report that there was a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on the petitioner’s breath, there was no evidence that would suggest the petitioner operated his vehicle in an intoxicated state … . Accordingly, the totality of circumstances did not warrant the determination that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 by refusing to submit to a chemical test and to revoke the petitioner’s driver license. Matter of DeMichele v Department of Motor Vehs. of N.Y. State, 2016 NY Slip Op 00652, 2nd Dept 2-3-16

 

ADMINSTRATIVE LAW (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REVOCATION OF LICENSE BASED ON CHEMICAL TEST REFUSAL)/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REVOCATION OF LICENSE BASED ON CHEMICAL TEST REFUSAL)/CHEMICAL TEST (DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REVOCATION OF LICENSE BASED ON CHEMICAL TEST REFUSAL)

/by
You might also like
Unexcused Failure to Comply with Discovery Orders Warranted Striking of the Pleadings
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING AND INSPECTION PRACTICES WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE THE LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LIQUID ON THE FLOOR (SECOND DEPT).
THE INSURANCE LAW REQUIRED SUBMITTING THE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO CARRIERS TO ARBITRATION; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER; THE LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT ANYTIME (SECOND DEPT).
THE SEARCH WARRANT WHICH ALLOWED THE SEIZURE OF BUSINESS COMPUTERS, COMPUTER FILES AND BUSINESS DOCUMENTS WITH ONLY A DATE-RESTRICTION AMOUNTED TO A GENERAL WARRANT, THE SEIZED ITEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
Religious Holidays in Teachers’ Collective Bargaining Agreement Violate the Establishment Clause 
THE SENTENCING COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ENHANCED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE BASED ON A POSITIVE DRUG TEST; DEFENDANT DID NOT VIOLATE ANY OF THE TERMS OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT AS IT WAS DESCRIBED ON THE RECORD BY THE COURT; DEFENDANT SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THE RESIDENTIAL DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM, WHICH IS WHAT THE PLEA AGREEMENT CALLED FOR (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PIECE OF A BUILDING FACADE WHICH CAME LOOSE; PLAINTIFF SUED TWO DEFENDANTS WHO HAD DONE WORK IN THE ROADWAY NEAR THE BUILDING, ALLEGING THE EXCAVATION LOOSENED THE FACADE MATERIAL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO INSIST ON PROMISED MONTHLY MINIMUM PURCHASES OF DEFENDANTS’ PRODUCTS CONSTITUTED A WAIVER OF THE CONTRACTUAL MINIMUM PURCHASE REQUIREMENTS, NOTWITHSTANDING A NO ORAL WAIVER CLAUSE.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

RIGHT TO TESTIFY BEFORE A GRAND JURY IS NOT A RIGHT RESERVED TO A DEFENDANT,... DOG-BITE STRICT LIABILITY LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED, DOG-OWNER’S CROSS...