Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Martin CHAMBERS, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: July 01, 2005

PRESENT:  GREEN, J.P., GORSKI, MARTOCHE, SMITH, AND HAYES, JJ. David M. Parks, Ithaca, for Defendant-Appellant. Susan H. Lindenmuth, District Attorney, Penn Yan, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

On appeal from a judgment convicting him, after a jury trial, of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[3];  § 1193[1][c][ii] ), defendant contends that his constitutional right of confrontation was violated when County Court admitted certain hospital test results in evidence as business records.   That contention is not preserved for our review (see People v. Bones, 17 A.D.3d 689, 690, 793 N.Y.S.2d 545;  People v. Craig, 15 A.D.3d 919, 788 N.Y.S.2d 778, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 852, 797 N.Y.S.2d 426, 830 N.E.2d 325;  People v. Carter, 1 A.D.3d 1028, 1029, 767 N.Y.S.2d 539, lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 738, 778 N.Y.S.2d 464, 810 N.E.2d 917;  cf. People v. Douglas, 4 N.Y.3d 777, 779, 793 N.Y.S.2d 825, 826 N.E.2d 796), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see Craig, 15 A.D.3d at 919-920, 788 N.Y.S.2d 778;  Carter, 1 A.D.3d at 1029, 767 N.Y.S.2d 539).   We reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.


Copied to clipboard