18 Cited authorities

People v. Smith
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1147 (N.Y. 2012) Cited 85 times
Explaining that proof of a refusal to submit to a chemical test “is received to permit the inference of consciousness of guilt, i.e., that defendant refused to take the test because of his apprehension as to whether he would pass it”
People v. Thomas
46 N.Y.2d 100 (N.Y. 1978) Cited 216 times
Applying the same rule to evidence of personal hostility by a witness
People v. Atkins
85 N.Y.2d 1007 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 83 times
In Atkins, the Court of Appeals held that where, as here, a motorist has consented to a blood test prior to arrest, the statutory prerequisites of New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, relied on by Petitioner, do not apply.
People v. Rosa
112 A.D.3d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013) Cited 23 times
In Rosa, the Appellate Division First Department held that the defendant's consent was voluntary when "considering the record as a whole," id., and did not suppress the evidence of the breath test.
People v. Victory
166 Misc. 2d 549 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1995) Cited 24 times
Holding that "the People must now prove at a hearing by expert testimony the scientific reliability of such BAC test administered more than two hours from arrest"
People v. Morris
8 Misc. 3d 360 (N.Y. Misc. 2005) Cited 13 times
In People v. Morris, 8 Misc.3d 360, 368, 793 N.Y.S.2d 754 [Richmond County Crim. Ct. 2005] this judge suppressed evidence of a defendant's refusal given after the passage of two hours.
Tower Insurance v. NHT Owners LLC
115 A.D.3d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014) Cited 4 times
2014-03-20 TOWER INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NHT OWNERS LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents, Robert Riccio, Defendant. Law Office of Max W. Gershweir, New York (Joseph S. Wiener of counsel), for appellant. Rothkrug Rothkrug & Spector, LLP, Great Neck (Simon H. Rothkrug of counsel), for respondents. SAXE Law Office of Max W. Gershweir, New York (Joseph S. Wiener of counsel), for appellant. Rothkrug Rothkrug & Spector, LLP, Great Neck (Simon H. Rothkrug of counsel), for respondents
People v. Coludro
166 Misc. 2d 662 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1995) Cited 17 times
October 18, 1995 Stuart Birbach, New York City, for defendant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney of Kings County (Mark Muccigrosso of counsel), for plaintiff. LEON RUCHELSMAN, J. Defendant was arrested and was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192) and criminal mischief in the third degree (Penal Law § 145.05). Defense counsel now moves for a Dunaway/Huntley/Wade refusal hearing. A hearing was held by this court, and Police Officer Gregg testified
People v. McClam
16 N.Y.S.3d 793 (N.Y. Dist. Ct. 2015)
No. 2014NA008748. 2015-03-30 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Tony McCLAM, Defendant. At approximately 11:04 p.m. Officer Ford again asked the Defendant if he would submit to a chemical test of his blood. In response, the Defendant again wrote “No” and signed his name on the request form. See also: People v. Davis, 103 AD3d 810, 962 N.Y.S.2d 174 (2nd Dept.2013); People v. Sluska, 15 A.D.2d 421, 798 N.Y.S.2d 55 (2nd Dept.2005); People v. Allen, 89 AD3d 742, 932 N.Y.S.2d 142 (2nd Dept.2011)
People v. Brol
81 A.D.2d 739 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981) Cited 33 times
In Brol the court determined that under a New York statute if a chemical test was not taken within two hours of arrest it could not be received into evidence.

The People, Appellant,v.Donald Odum, Respondent.

18 Cited authorities

Explaining that proof of a refusal to submit to a chemical test “is received to permit the inference of consciousness of guilt, i.e., that defendant refused to take the test because of his apprehension as to whether he would pass it”

Applying the same rule to evidence of personal hostility by a witness

In Atkins, the Court of Appeals held that where, as here, a motorist has consented to a blood test prior to arrest, the statutory prerequisites of New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, relied on by Petitioner, do not apply.

In Rosa, the Appellate Division First Department held that the defendant's consent was voluntary when "considering the record as a whole," id., and did not suppress the evidence of the breath test.

Holding that "the People must now prove at a hearing by expert testimony the scientific reliability of such BAC test administered more than two hours from arrest"

In People v. Morris, 8 Misc.3d 360, 368, 793 N.Y.S.2d 754 [Richmond County Crim. Ct. 2005] this judge suppressed evidence of a defendant's refusal given after the passage of two hours.

In Brol the court determined that under a New York statute if a chemical test was not taken within two hours of arrest it could not be received into evidence.