Legal Opinion
People v. Lopez
Criminal Court of the City of New York
Decided September 26, 2011PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Mario F. Mattei, J.
“We have firmly held that the failure of the Legislature to include a substantive, significant prescription in a statute is a strong indication that its exclusion was intended” (People v Finnegan, 85 NY2d 53, 58 [1995]).
In the case before the court the defendant has been arrested and charged with two counts of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2], [3]) and one count of operating a motor vehicle while impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]).
The defendant contends that the accusatory instrument should be…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- People v. CaseyNew York Court of Appeals · 2000
- People v. DanielsNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- People v. FinneganNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Finger Lakes Racing Ass'n v. New York State Racing & Wagering BoardNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- People v. SuberNew York Court of Appeals · 2012
- People v. MoralesCriminal Court of the City of New York · 2012
- People v. WoodsCriminal Court of the City of New York · 2016