People v. DePonceau
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant, who had been arrested for driving while intoxicated, had the right to consult with his attorney before deciding whether to consent to a blood test (see, People v Shaw, 72 NY2d 1032, 1033-1034; see also, People v Isaac, 224 AD2d 993, 994, lv denied 88 NY2d 937). However, there is no “absolute right to refuse the test until a lawyer reaches the scene * * *. If the lawyer is not physically present and cannot be reached promptly by telephone or otherwise, the defendant may be required to elect between taking the test and submitting to…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. GurseyNew York Court of Appeals · 1968
- People v. ShawNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
- People v. IsaacAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- People v. PopeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- People v. KearneyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- People v. CurkendallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- People v. YoungbloodAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- People v. SantiagoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- People v. VinogradovAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- People v. WashingtonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.