Opinion
April 29, 1996
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Kowtna, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the court did not err in denying suppression of evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test of his breath. At the hearing, the arresting officer testified that he used a standard card to read the defendant the consequences of refusing the test. When the defendant stated that he did not understand, the arresting officer explained the warnings to him "in layman's terms", stating that the defendant "could lose his license". The defendant then stated that he would not take the test. The defendant, again, refused to take the test after being apprised of his rights during a videotaping. Thus, there was ample evidence before the court to support the conclusion that the defendant was given clear and unequivocal warning of the effect of his refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test, and that he persisted in his refusal to take the test ( see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 [b], [f]; People v Cragg, 71 N.Y.2d 926; People v. Thomas, 46 N.Y.2d 100; People v Bratcher, 165 A.D.2d 906; People v. Torrey, 144 A.D.2d 865; People v. Boudreau, 115 A.D.2d 652).
We also find that the prosecutor did not make any improper reference in his opening statement to the defendant's prior conviction of driving while intoxicated, nor did he elicit testimony to that effect during direct examination of the arresting officer. Sullivan, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.