People v. Kapsuris
| Decision Date | 29 November 1976 |
| Citation | 392 N.Y.S.2d 785,89 Misc.2d 634 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Nicholas KAPSURIS, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
The defendant has moved to dismiss a simplified information charging him with violating Vehicle and Traffic Law, Section 1192(2) and (3) on the basis that the statute is unconstitutionally vague. Argument was heard October 14, 1976 and I reserved decision because the Fourth Department, Appellate Division was then considering the case of People v. Saint Ours, 54 A.D.2d 1080, 388 N.Y.S.2d 752. The Appellate Division has just rendered a decision unanimously affirming the judgment, Saint Ours' conviction, stating that it did not reach the issue of the constitutionality of Vehicle and Traffic Law, Section 1192(1).
People v. Farmer, 36 N.Y.2d 386, 369 N.Y.S.2d 44, 330 N.E.2d 22, held that Vehicle and Traffic Law, Section 1196 was constitutional. Section 1192(1), defining driving while ability impaired, defines a violation and not a crime; Section 1192(3), defining driving while intoxicated, defines a crime. The defendant maintains that the boundary between the two is not clear, because the common law definition of intoxication set out in People v. Weaver, 188 App.Div. 395, 177 N.Y.S. 71, defined Intoxication as a condition which Impairs ability to operate a motor vehicle.
However, Section 1195 differentiates between intoxicated and impaired depending on the blood alcohol level. If Section 1195 is read with Section 1192, there is a clear line between impaired and intoxicated. If the defendant has not been tested for blood alcohol level, however, the line of demarcation is less clear. Weaver stated that any degree of impairment, 'however slight,' was to be considered by the jury as intoxication; under the then controlling statute, the degree-scale for finding a defendant guilty of driving while intoxicated ranged from slight impairment to substantial impairment.
The proof against Saint Ours could leave no reasonable doubt in anyone's mind that the defendant's ability to drive was more than merely impaired. The defendant stopped his car across two lanes on a busy highway, Sheridan Drive, and then told the police that everything was all right, that the car had been parked there all night long. The defendant was too drunk...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cruz
...3 (People v. Barrett, 89 Misc.2d 631, 634, 393 N.Y.S.2d 225, 227 (Town Ct. of Tonawanda, Erie County); see also People v. Kapsuris, 89 Misc.2d 634, 635, 392 N.Y.S.2d 785, 786 (Erie County Ct.)). In People v. Graser, 90 Misc.2d 219, 393 N.Y.S.2d 1004, the Town Court of Amherst, Erie County, ......
-
United States v. Paredes
...25 (2d Dep't 2002) (" Vehicle and Traffic Law § 155 provides that traffic infractions are not crimes."); see also People v. Kapsuris, 89 Misc.2d 634, 392 N.Y.S.2d 785, 786 (County Ct., Erie Cty.1976) (" Section 1192(1), defining driving while ability impaired, defines a violation and not a ......
-
People v. Grejszak
...but in the former "very, very drunk". (See among Cruz and others, People v. Barrett, 89 Misc.2d 631, 393 N.Y.S.2d 225; People v. Kapsuris, 89 Misc.2d 634, 392 N.Y.S.2d 785.) No legislative intent to create such a distinction appears. The Legislature has, in other instances, created offenses......
-
People v. Barrett
...resent decision of the County Court of Erie County had cast some new perspective on the constitutional issue. This was People v. Kapsuris, 89 Misc.2d 634, 392 N.Y.S.2d 785 decided on November 29, 1976. We are advised that the County Court's opinion has now been accepted for publication by t......