PEOPLE v. ORTIZ (2019)

Judgment of conviction (Melissa A. Crane, J.), rendered June 14, 2016, affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v. Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The police lawfully stopped defendant's car after they observed an individual urinating in public before entering the vehicle (see CPL 140.10[1][a]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 16-118[6]; see also People v. Smith, 187 AD2d 267 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 893 [1993]), and then observed the vehicle make a wide left turn onto Amsterdam Avenue without signaling (see People v. Jarrett, 157 AD3d 534 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1014 [2018]), and fail to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk (see Administrative Code § 19-190[a] ). After lawfully stopping the vehicle, the police had probable cause to arrest defendant at least for driving while impaired (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[1]), based upon the officers' observation of defendant's bloodshot, watery eyes, the “strong” smell of alcohol on his breath, and his “very unsteady” gait (see People v. Reyes, 136 AD3d 443 [2016]; People v. McCarthy, 135 AD2d 1113 [1987]; People v. Blajeski, 125 AD2d 582, 582-583 [1986], lv denied 69 NY2d 877 [1987]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.