People v Jarocha
2009 NY Slip Op 06944 [66 AD3d 1384]
October 2, 2009
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 9, 2009


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Henry J.Jarocha, Appellant.

[*1]John E. Tyo, Shortsville, for defendant-appellant.

R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (Jeffrey L. Taylor of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, J.), renderedOctober 19, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of felony drivingwhile intoxicated (two counts) and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in thefirst degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial ofone count of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (Vehicle andTraffic Law § 511 [3]) and two counts of felony driving while intoxicated (Vehicle andTraffic Law § 1192 [2], [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [former (ii)]). We reject defendant'scontention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of aggravatedunlicensed operation of a motor vehicle (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490,495 [1987]). Contrary to defendant's contention, the People presented the order of suspensionand revocation with defendant's signature and thus established that defendant knew or had reasonto know that his license had been revoked (see People v Crandall, 199 AD2d 867, 869[1993], lv denied 83 NY2d 803 [1994]). Also, viewing the evidence in light of theelements of the two counts of felony driving while intoxicated as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict with respect to those counts is not against theweight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495).

Finally, we conclude that County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant'smotion for substitution of counsel on the day on which jury selection was scheduled to begin (see People v Cunningham, 12 AD3d1131, 1132 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 829, 5 NY3d 761 [2005]; People vGloster, 175 AD2d 258, 259 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1011 [1991]; People vTerry, 115 AD2d 130, lv denied 67 NY2d 890 [1986]). Present—Smith, J.P.,Centra, Fahey, Carni and Pine, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.