Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: KRISTEN JOHNSON, PETITIONER, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES APPEAL BOARD, RESPONDENT.
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 AD3d 1657, 1657 [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 AD3d 1245, 1245-1246 [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 AD3d 1693, 1694 [4th Dept 2022]).
Entered: November 17, 2023
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 802
Decided: November 17, 2023
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)