People v. Boscic, 15 N.Y.3d 494

People charged Boscic with driving while impaired by alcohol after a BAC DataMaster reading of .07.
The defense offered a certificate showing the DataMaster was calibrated about six months prior.
Justice Court admitted the test results; County Court reversed on appeal, holding a six-month rule.
This Court previously held no strict six-month rule, focusing on proper working order of the device.
DOH regulations later set calibration frequency generally not to exceed one year, effective after arrest, but not applicable here.
Court affirms no per se six-month calibration rule and remands to assess overall admissibility and weight.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is there a six-month calibration rule for breath tests?	Boscic relies on Todd applying a six-month rule.	Boscic contends the six-month limit invalidates results.	No strict six-month rule; admissibility requires proper working order.
What foundation is required for admissibility of breath-test results?	People must show the device was in proper working order.	Defense argues insufficient foundation due to calibration timing.	Foundation must show proper working order; timing alone not dispositive.
Does the DOH calibration regulation govern this case?	Regulation supports calibration standards.	Regulation not in effect at arrest; not controlling here.	Regulatory timing not controlling; analysis rests on proper working order.

People v. Todd, 38 N.Y.2d 755 (1975) (six-month rule not explicit; focus on proper working order)
People v. Gower, 42 N.Y.2d 117 (1977) (breath-test evidence foundation; proper working order)
People v. Freeland, 68 N.Y.2d 699 (1986) (foundation for breath test admissibility; proper working order)
People v. Alvarez, 70 N.Y.2d 375 (1987) (breath-test foundation considerations)
People v. Mertz, 68 N.Y.2d 136 (1986) (scientific reliability; admissibility foundation)
People v. Kinne, 71 N.Y.2d 879 (1988) (breathalyzer evidence foundation; proper working order)