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.
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert G. Rosa, Defendant–Appellant.
_
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John W. Carter, J. at hearing; Nicholas Iacovetta, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered November 22, 2011, convicting defendant of vehicular assault in the second degree and leaving the scene of an incident without reporting, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 11/212 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348–349 [2007] ). The element of serious physical injury (Penal Law § 10.00[10] ) was established by evidence that two years after defendant hit her with his car, the victim was still experiencing pain in her wrist and back, which limited the physical activities in which she could engage. This constituted protracted impairment of health and protracted impairment of the function of a bodily organ, thus constituting serious physical injury (see People v. Corbin, 90 AD3d 478 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 972 [2012]; People v. Graham, 297 A.D.2d 579 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 535 [2002] ).
Because more than two hours had passed since defendant's arrest, the officer who administered the breathalyzer test should not have advised defendant that, if he refused to take the test, his driver's license would be suspended and the refusal could be used against him in court. Nevertheless, considering the record as a whole, the court properly concluded that defendant's consent to the test was voluntary. Most significantly, without any coercive conduct by the officer, defendant first agreed to take the test before the officer gave the inappropriate warnings.
The court properly denied defendant's request for a pretrial hearing to determine whether the test, administered more than two hours after the arrest, was sufficiently reliable to be admissible. Although there are trial court opinions to the contrary (see e. g. People v. Holbrook, 20 Misc.3d 920 [Sup Ct Bronx County 2008] ), we agree with the analysis set forth in People v. D.R. (23 Misc.3d 605 [Sup Ct Bronx County 2009] ), which held that such a hearing is not required. While a defendant may challenge the reliability of the test at trial, we see no reason to conduct a pretrial hearing every time testing occurs more than two hours after arrest.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 1141 6
Decided: December 31, 2013
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)