<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Clifford Ampah, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered July 29, 2016, after a jury trial, convicting him of driving while intoxicated, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered July 29, 2016, affirmed.</p><p><i></i>The accusatory instrument charging driving while intoxicated (<i>see</i> Vehicle and Traffic Law ยง 1192[3]) was not jurisdictionally defective. The instrument recited that defendant operated a motor vehicle at an excessive speed, that he had watery eyes and an odor of an alcohol on his breath, that there was a cup containing white wine on the floor of the backseat of the vehicle and a bottle of wine on the center console, and that defendant refused to submit to a breath test (<a href="../2014/2014_02243.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Fiumara</i>, 116 AD3d 421</a> [2014], <i>lv denied </i>23 NY3d 1036 [2014]). </p><p>The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (<i>see People v Prochilo</i>, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Police had probable cause to arrest defendant, since he had watery eyes, smelled of alcohol, spoke with his mouth closed while looking away from the officers, had two containers containing a "yellow, greenish" liquid inside the car, and had been speeding (<a href="../2019/2019_01427.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Dudley, </i>169 AD3d 1059</a>, 1060 [2019], <i>lv denied </i>33 NY3d 1068 [2019]; <a href="../2014/2014_09157.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Vargas, </i>123 AD3d 1149</a>, 1150 [2014]<a href="../2009/2009_09078.htm" target="_blank"><i>; People v Thomas</i>, 68 AD3d 482</a>, 483 [2009], <i>lv denied </i>14 NY3d 806 [2010]). </p><p>The court also properly denied defendant's motion to suppress testimony of his refusal to take a breathalyzer test. The record supports the court's finding that defendant effectively refused the test by "acting in an obstructionist manner" by refusing to give a "yes or no" response to the officer's multiple requests that he take such test (<i>see People v Smith</i>, 18 NY3d 544, 550 [2012];<a href="../2015/2015_00285.htm" target="_blank"><i> People v Lizaldo</i>, 124 AD3d 432</a>, 433 [2015],<i> lv denied </i>26 NY3d 931 [2015]; <a href="../2018/2018_02508.htm" target="_blank"><i>see also People v Warren</i>, 160 AD3d 1132</a>, 1136 [2018], <i>lv denied </i>31 NY3d 1154 [2018]). </p><p>The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility (<a href="../2007/2007_09814.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Danielson</i>, 9 NY3d 342</a>, 348โ��349 [2007]). In addition to the officer's testimony that defendant exhibited classic signs of intoxication, he refused to take a breath test, unsatisfactorily performed physical coordination tests, and the toxicology report confirmed that the bottle recovered from the center console of his vehicle contained alcohol (<i>see People v Cruz</i>, 48 NY2d 419 [1979], <i>appeal dismissed </i>446 US 901 [1980]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: February 26, 2020<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>