The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Agustin Morel, Defendant-Appellant. (2024)

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Melissa A. Crane, J.), rendered September 8, 2015, affirmed.

The information charging driving while impaired by drugs (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[4]), was not jurisdictionally defective. Nonhearsay allegations established every element of the offense and defendant's commission thereof (see CPL 100.40[1][c]; People v Middleton, 35 NY3d 952, 954 [2020]). The arresting officer alleged that defendant operated a motor vehicle; that he had watery and bloodshot eyes; an "odor of marijuana on his clothes," and "ash containing marijuana on his pants"; that he admitted to the officer that he had "two puffs of marijuana" before the officer stopped him; and that defendant refused to take a urine test (see People v Drouin, 115 AD3d 1153, 1154 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1019 [2014]; see also People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419 [1979], appeal dismissed 446 US 901 [1980]). There is no requirement that the accusatory instrument also contain an allegation of erratic driving (see People v Fiumara, 116 AD3d 421 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1036 [2014]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: January 11, 2024