Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People of the State of New York v. Felix Cepeda

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT


December 7, 2010

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
RESPONDENT,
v.
FELIX CEPEDA,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Per curiam.

People v Cepeda (Felix)

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 7, 2010

PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Seth L. Marvin, J.), rendered December 1, 2006, after a non-jury trial, convicting him of driving while impaired, and imposing sentence.

Judgment of conviction (Seth L. Marvin, J.), rendered December 1, 2006, affirmed. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis to disturb the trial court's determinations concerning credibility. Based upon the credited evidence, including police testimony as to the manner in which defendant operated his vehicle and his appearance and condition at the scene, defendant's admission that he had consumed alcohol, and his blood alcohol content of .06% (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195[2][b]), the court was warranted in concluding that defendant's ability to operate the motor vehicle was impaired (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[1]; People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419, 426-427 [1979]).

Defendant's argument that the court improperly curtailed his cross-examination of the arresting police officer is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Martich, 30 AD3d 305 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 868 [2006]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits, since the court properly exercised its discretion in limiting questioning of the officer on a collateral issue (see People v Sorge, 301 NY 198 [1950]). Nor did the court improvidently exercise its discretion in denying defendant's request for a midtrial adjournment to call a witness whose anticipated testimony was not shown to be material to the case (see People v Foy, 32 NY2d 473 [1973]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Decision Date: December 07, 2010

20101207

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.