Cite as: The People v. Vanessa Collucci, 570742/09, NYLJ 1202577769554, at *1 (Sup., App. Tm., Decided August 29, 2012)

Before: Schoenfeld, J.P., Torres, Hunter, Jr., JJ.

Decided: August 29, 2012




Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered September 18, 2009, convicting her, upon a plea of guilty, of aggravated driving while intoxicated, and imposing sentence.


Judgment of conviction (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered September 18, 2009, affirmed.

We find unavailing defendant's challenge to the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument charging her with aggravated driving while intoxicated (see Penal Law §1192.2-a[a]). The information — comprising the misdemeanor complaint and the arresting police officer's supporting deposition, together with a Chemical Test Analysis




certificate sworn to by the police officer who administered defendant's blood alcohol test — alleged, inter alia, that defendant was observed driving in an "unsteady and abrupt manner"; exhibited slurred speech, a "flushed" face, watery and bloodshot eyes, and the odor of alcohol on her breath; and that the results of defendant's breath test showed her blood alcohol level to be over .21 percent. These factual allegations, "given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v. Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), are sufficient for pleading purposes to establish reasonable cause to believe and a prima facie case that defendant was guilty of aggravated driving while intoxicated (see and compare People v. Lopez, 170 Misc 2d 278 [1996]). Inasmuch as defendant's commission of the charged crime was adequately pleaded in the original information, her satellite jurisdictional challenge to the subsequently filed prosecutor's information is lacking in merit (see People v. Inserra, 4 NY2d 30 [2004]).