People v. Romano, 2016-2311 N CR

CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
Citation155 N.Y.S.3d 527 (Table),73 Misc.3d 137 (A)
Docket Number2016-2311 N CR
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert ROMANO, Appellant.
Decision Date18 November 2021

73 Misc.3d 137 (A)
155 N.Y.S.3d 527 (Table)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Robert ROMANO, Appellant.

2016-2311 N CR

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York, Second Dept., 9 & 10 Jud. Dist.

Decided on November 18, 2021


Thomas R. Villecco, for appellant.

Nassau County District Attorney (Cristin N. Connell and Michael K. Degree of counsel), for respondent.

PRESENT: HELEN VOUTSINAS, J.P., ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, TIMOTHY S. DRISCOLL, JJ.

ORDERED that so much of the appeal as is from the judgments convicting defendant of speeding and failing to signal a turn, respectively, is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment convicting defendant of common-law driving while intoxicated is affirmed.

Defendant was charged in three simplified traffic informations with, respectively, driving while intoxicated (common law) ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3] ), speeding ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 [b] ) and failing to signal a turn ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [a] ). Following a pretrial hearing, the District Court (Andrew M. Engel, J.) suppressed certain noticed statements attributed to defendant.

A jury trial was conducted during which two New York State Troopers testified for the prosecution that, while on patrol, they observed and followed a vehicle defendant was driving going 80 miles per hour (mph) in a 55 mph zone, as well as switching lanes multiple times without signaling. The troopers testified that, after effecting a traffic stop and approaching defendant's vehicle, they smelled the strong odor of alcohol on defendant's breath. Defendant had difficulty keeping his balance when he exited his vehicle, and he failed each of three standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs). Following his arrest on suspicion of driving while intoxicated, defendant twice refused to submit a breath sample for chemical testing after receiving refusal warnings from one of the troopers.

During cross-examination of one of the troopers, defense counsel moved into evidence a document that contained the suppressed noticed statements attributed to defendant, in which he told the troopers that...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT