Majority
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered October 14, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of driving while intoxicated, a class E felony, and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of driving while intoxicated as a class E felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [3]; 1193 [1] [c] [i]) and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (§ 511 [3] [a] [ii]), defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that he was operating the vehicle at the time of the accident. We reject that contention. “ ‘It is well settled that, even in circumstantial evidence cases, the standard for appellate review of legal sufficiency issues is whether any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the [factfinder] on the basis of the evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the People’ ” (People v Annis, 126 AD3d 1525 , 1525-1526 [2015]; see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 , 495 [1987]). Here, we conclude that “ ‘there is ample evidence in the record from which [Supreme Court] could have reasonably concluded that defendant was indeed driving at the time of the accident’ ” (Annis, 126 AD3d at 1526 ). When a police officer arrived on the scene, he observed that a vehicle had struck a support pillar for an interstate highway. The officer concluded that the accident had happened shortly before his arrival because, among other
Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, DeJoseph and Scudder, JJ.
Cases cited
- People v. Bleakley 69 NY2d 490 at 495 p. 1571
- People v. Danielson 9 NY3d 342 at 349 p. 1572