People v. Zabala

• Decision Date: 01 October 2021
• Docket Number: 570239/18
• Citation: 2021 NY Slip Op 50930 (U)
• Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Wilmer Zabala, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

2021 NY Slip Op 50930(U)

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Wilmer Zabala, Defendant-Appellant.

570239/18

Supreme Court of New York, First Department

October 1, 2021

Unpublished Opinion

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Judy H. Kim, J.), rendered March 20, 2018, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while impaired, and imposing sentence.

PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Brigantti, Hagler, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of conviction (Judy H. Kim, J.), rendered March 20, 2018, affirmed.

The findings of a suppression court are entitled to great deference and should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous (see People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761 [1977]). Here, the judge who heard the testimony and viewed the Intoxicated Driver's Testing Unit [IDTU] room video, was warranted in finding that defendant's comprehension of English was sufficient to enable him to understand and waive his Miranda rights (see People v Jin Cheng Lin, 26 N.Y.3d 701, 725-727 [2016]; People v Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 285, 289 [1984]; People v Fuentes, 185 A.D.3d 960, 961 [2020]; People v Mena, 161 A.D.3d 542, 543 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 939 [2018]). Although the video showed that during the Intoxilyzer Test, defendant twice indicated that he did not speak English, the credited evidence established that defendant understood English and conversed with the officers in English both before and after the test. Specifically, defendant answered the English-speaking officer's inquiries at the scene, followed his English-language instruction to take a portable breath test, and gave no indication that he did not understand the questions or needed any assistance from an interpreter. Defendant also completed the coordination tests based upon English-language instruction. Moreover, defendant affirmatively indicated his understanding of the Miranda rights as they were read to him in English, and answered numerous questions in English related to his driving, i.e. where he was going, where he was coming from, and his eating and drinking. As the suppression court noted, "While some of defendant's answers were indirectly responsive, the nature of his answers suggests he was trying to avoid answering the questions rather than responding to questions he did not understand."