Opinion
No. 570465/19
10-18-2024
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Placido Lopez (Placido), Defendant-Appellant.
Unpublished Opinion
PRESENT: Tisch, J.P., James, Perez, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Michael John Hartofilis, J.), rendered June 20, 2019, after a jury trial, convicting him of aggravated driving while intoxicated and reckless driving, and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction (Michael John Hartofilis, J.), rendered June 20, 2019, affirmed.
The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury's determinations concerning credibility. The evidence established that defendant drove his vehicle at a high rate of speed, the wrong way down a one-way street, at night, without headlights illuminated, while exhibiting visible signs of intoxication; he admitted that he had been drinking; and his blood alcohol (BAC) test result was an "insufficient sample" reading of.186.
The court providently exercised its discretion in limiting defendant's cross-examination of the arresting officer on prior allegations of misconduct asserted against him in an unrelated lawsuit. The officer was one of several officers named in that action and defendant had not identified specific allegations of wrongdoing by him that were relevant to his credibility (see People v Smith, 27 N.Y.3d 652 [2016]; People v El-Amin, 187 A.D.3d 676 [2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1056 [2021]). Nor did defendant identify specific allegations regarding a disciplinary violation, for personal use of the police department computer system, relevant to the credibility of the officer who administered the breathalyzer test at the precinct (see People v Williams, 184 A.D.3d 442 [2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 932 [2020]). In any event, any error was harmless. The evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming, and there was no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant had he been permitted to cross-examine the officers without limitation (see People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242 [1975]).