People v. O'Connor
| Decision Date | 10 January 1994 |
| Citation | 159 Misc.2d 1072,607 N.Y.S.2d 856 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Joseph O'CONNOR, Defendant. |
| Court | New York District Court |
Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., County of Nassau, Mineola, for the People.
Robert J. Brunetti, Hempstead, for defendant.
The defendant is charged with driving while intoxicated, VTL § 1192(2) on July 24, 1993 in the County of Nassau. At the commencement of this bench trial defendant conceded that he was intoxicated and the Intoxilyzer 5000, which produced a reading of .22, was properly administered to him and was in proper working condition. (Court Exhibit 1) Therefore, the only issue to be determined is whether the defendant was "operating the vehicle".
First, the Court must resolve the question of fact presented by the opposing testimony of the two Police Officers as against the testimony of defendant and his witnesses. In substance, the Police Officers testified that defendant drove the automobile from its parked position 3 to 5 feet before he was stopped by Police Officer Feil and that the owner of the car, Rich (Sal) Loiacano and a woman sat in the passenger seat. It is undisputed that the vehicle was a two-seater, 1977 Corvette, and that it was parked on Lawrence Avenue in Franklin Square while the defendant, Mr. Loiacano and others attended a rock concert at the Plattdeutsche Park Restaurant.
Defendant and his witness, Rich Loiacano, both testified that the defendant was not expected to drive the vehicle and that the vehicle did not move. Further, that Mr. Loiacano had to start the vehicle routinely as on this occasion by using a screw driver on the starter and that Mr. Loiacano requested the defendant sit in the driver seat and push the gas pedal to prevent stalling of the engine after Mr. Loiacano started the car by first inserting the key, turning it to the "on" position and then starting the car by using the screw driver under the hood of the car. It was also established that defendant did not drive to the rock concert with the owner.
The Court must resolve this question in favor of the defendant based primarily on the entries in Police Officer Feil's memo book, the supporting deposition, and computer case report, all three of which state that defendant was behind the wheel and that the engine was running and none of which state that the car was moving and/or that defendant was observed driving same, even for a few feet. Further, Police Officer Feil testified that defendant told him at the scene "all I did was test the car out".
Therefore, the Court finds that the defendant was seated behind the wheel of the vehicle with the motor running only for the purpose of helping the owner start the vehicle and without any intention of driving same.
Based upon the above findings of fact the Court will now consider whether this fact pattern constitutes "operation". In examining the cases in which operation was established based upon the defendant sitting behind the wheel with the car running but without the observation of defendant driving, it is noted that all were based on certain facts calling for a strong inference that the defendant actually drove the vehicle.
People v. Domagala, 123 Misc. 757, 206 N.Y.S. 288. Defendant was observed attempting to start his motor vehicle six times, and every time he attempted to put it into gear the motor stalled. The front wheels of the vehicle were abutting a curb. The defendant did not move the vehicle. The Court found that defendant "violate[d] the law the instant he began to manipulate the machinery of the motor for the purpose of putting the automobile into motion."
People v. Foster, 133 Misc.2d 427, 507 N.Y.S.2d 119. Here defendant was asleep behind the wheel, and when the Police Officer awoke him he proceeded to drive 1/2 block.
People v. Marriott, 37 A.D.2d 868, 325 N.Y.S.2d 177. Defendant was alone in a car in a remote area. He was observed sitting behind the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lawrence
...this standard, merely sitting behind the wheel with the engine running is not sufficient for operation (see People v. O'Connor, 159 Misc.2d 1072, 1073–1075, 607 N.Y.S.2d 856 [Dist Ct Nassau County 1994] ). Where, as here, there is no witness to the defendant's driving nor admission of the s......
-
United States v. Paredes
...("DWI"). Compare id. § 1192(1) with id. §§ 1192(2), 1192(3). The violation need not involve "driving." See People v. O'Connor, 159 Misc.2d 1072, 607 N.Y.S.2d 856, 857–58 (Dist.Ct.Nassau Cty.1994) (collecting cases).Were we to accept the view of the Commission, if a person were to have a few......
-
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Oster
...(see People v. Alaimo , 34 NY2d 453 [1974] ; People v. Prescott , 95 NY2d 655 [2001] ), but it too has limits. See People v. O'Connor , 159 Misc 2d 1072, 1074 (Dist.Ct. [Nassau] 1994) ; People v. Moore , 186 Misc 2d 614 (Dist.Ct. [Suffolk] 2000) ; People v. DeSantis , Vol. 203, No. 97, NYLJ......
-
People v. Miley
...than that of mere driving (see Matter of Prudhomme , 27 A.D.2d 234, 236, 278 N.Y.S.2d 67 [3d Dept. 1967] ; People v. O'Connor , 159 Misc. 2d 1072, 1075, 607 N.Y.S.2d 856 [Dist. Ct. Nassau County 1994] ). Indeed, "a person operates a motor vehicle when he begins to use the mechanism of the a......