Opinion
No. 570327/09.
2012-07-24
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Vladislav CHIJEVICH, Defendant–Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Rita Mella, J.), rendered December 5, 2008, after a jury trial, convicting him of two counts of driving while intoxicated, and imposing sentence.
Present: LOWE, III, P.J., SCHOENFELD, HUNTER, JR., JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Judgment of conviction (Rita Mella, J.), rendered December 5, 2008, affirmed.
The defendant's present arguments relating to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for driving while intoxicated ( seeVehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[2], [3] ), to the extent preserved for appellate review, are lacking in merit. Having satisfied the foundational requirements for the admission of the breathalyzer test results ( see People v. Freeland, 68 N.Y.2d 699, 700 [1986];People v. Mertz, 68 N.Y.2d 136, 146 [1986] ), the People presented evidence which established a breathalyzer reading of 0.21% within two hours of defendant's arrest ( seeVehicle and Traffic Law § 1194[2][a][2] ). The results of the breath test, together with evidence, inter alia, that defendant, upon being stopped for making a left turn without signaling, “swayed” and was unsteady on his feet, exhibited slurred speech, watery and bloodshot eyes and the odor of alcohol on his breath, and failed—in the arresting officer's view—two of three videotaped coordination tests, were sufficient for the jury to conclude that the elements of the crimes had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v.. Jacquin, 124 A.D.2d 594, 595 [1986],affd71 N.Y.2d 825 [1988];People v. Poje, 270 A.D.2d 649, 650–651 [2000],lv denied95 N.Y.2d 802 [2000];). Furthermore, in the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348–349 [2007] ). Issues concerning credibility and the evaluation of expert testimony were properly placed before the jury and there is no basis to disturb its determinations.
We have considered and rejected defendant's jurisdictional point.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.