PEOPLE v. MILLER (2021)

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

After a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of driving while ability impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]) based upon testimony and other evidence that defendant rear-ended a parked police car which had its emergency lights activated; that defendant had red and glassy eyes, and an odor of alcohol on her breath; that defendant admitted that she had consumed alcohol; and that defendant refused to submit to a breath test.

Contrary to defendant's contention, the People established at a suppression hearing that there was probable cause to arrest her for driving while intoxicated (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]; People v Johnson, 140 AD3d 978, 979 [2016]; People v Kemper, 65 Misc 3d 150[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51855[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2019]). Furthermore, the court properly denied suppression of defendant's statements (see People v Dougal, 266 AD2d 574 [1999]; People v MacKenzie, 9 Misc 3d 129[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51535[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]).

Defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish her guilt of driving while ability impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]) is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-20 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of driving while ability impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]) beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 409 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon a review of the record, we are satisfied that the guilty verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

RUDERMAN, P.J., EMERSON and DRISCOLL, JJ., concur.