People v. Farrell
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Hernandez (Rochester City Court 2011)
- People v. Guidice (N.Y. 1994)
- People v. Lorenzo (New York County Courts 1987)
- People v. Mertz (N.Y. 1986)
- People v. English (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- People v. Kanhai (Criminal Court of the City of New York 2005)
- People v. Dailey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- People v. Dailey (New York County Courts 1997)
- People v. Vega (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- People v. Fisher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- People v. Montgomery (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- People v. Crawford (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- People v. Reding (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- People v. Ruiz (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1990)
- People v. Karpeles (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1989)
- New York County District Attorney's Office v. Rodriguez (Civil Court of the City of New York 1988)
- Lumsden v. New York City Fire Department (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- People v. Rennoldson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- People v. Young (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- People v. McDonald (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- People v. Molina (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- People v. Drumm (New York County Courts 1984)
- People v. Fadale (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
In the circumstances of this case, the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for inspection of the test ampoule used in administering the breathalyzer test given to defendant or alternatively to dismiss the indictment for driving while having .10 of one per centum or more by weight of alcohol in his blood and driving while ability impaired by the consumption of alcohol. The ampoule had been destroyed in accordance with routine practice. Defendant submitted no evidence to show that the ampoule could have been reanalyzed in such a fashion as to produce material evidence, and the record does not reflect that an opportunity to present evidence on this issue was ever requested. As well, defendant’s motion was interposed some two and one-half months after his arrest. Thus, the trial court correctly ruled that the People were not required to preserve the test ampoule and that the option of examining another ampoule from the same batch along with the procedures required to authenticate the test results provided adequate protection of defendant’s due process rights.
The trial court correctly admitted certain certificates showing the results of analyses of a sample ampoule, which were used in laying a foundation for admission of the test results, as business records. The certificates recited and uncontroverted testimony showed that the reports were prepared in the ordinary course of the New York State Police Laboratory’s business and that it is the regular course of the laboratory’s business to make such records.
Defendant’s argument that the ampoules used were too old to be reliably accurate was not preserved because it was not raised before the trial court.
We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.