People v. Shank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Feb 3, 2006

Versions:26 A.D.3d 812

808 N.Y.S.2d 533

thnk The user wants to convert a legal document from images and OCR to clean, semantic HTML. - Page 1: Starts mid-opinion. Mentions `People v Cosme`, `United States v Matlock`, `People v Hines`, `People v Bleakley`. Then a signature block for a case (Pigott, Jr., P.J., Gorski, Smith, Green and Hayes, JJ.). - Case 2 (Start): `THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JOHN D. BRACEWELL, Appellant.` Citation `[810 NYS2d 273]`. Court: Ontario County Court (Craig J. Doran, J.). Date: December 9, 2003. Conviction details: sexual abuse in the first degree, assault in the third degree. Order: unanimously affirmed. Memorandum. Sentence not unduly harsh or severe. Signature block. - Case 3 (Start): `THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JOSEPH SHANK, Appellant.` Citation `[808 NYS2d 533]`. - Page 2: Continuation of the Joseph Shank case. Appeal from Erie County Court (Sheila A. DiTullio, J.). Date: June 25, 2003. Convicted of felony driving while intoxicated and traffic infractions. Order: unanimously modified. Memorandum. - Page 3: Continuation of Shank case. Mentions `People v Gray`, `People v Fuzia`, `People v Kane`, `People v Cruz`, `People v Hasenflue`, `People v Bowers`, `People v Cole`, `People v Bleakley`. Signature block. - Case 4 (Start): `THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v DORIAN MORGAN, Appellant.` Citation `[807 NYS2d 918]`. Supreme Court, Erie County (Mario J. Rossetti, A.J.). Date: December 22, 2003. The instructions say: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” - First case fragment (Page 1) is partial. Skip. - Second case: `People v. Bracewell`. Complete. - Third case: `People v. Shank`. Complete. - Fourth case: `People v. Morgan`. Starts at the bottom of page 3. Partial? It has the caption and summary but the memorandum text likely follows on the next page (not provided). I will convert the first full case found in the document. That is `People v. Bracewell`. Wait, looking at the document, it seems to be a page from a reporter (like NYS2d). These are short memorandum opinions. The prompt says “convert only the MAIN opinion“. Usually, in these scenarios, if there are multiple, the instructions imply selecting one that is complete. `People v. Bracewell` is complete on page 1. `People v. Shank` spans page 1, 2, and 3 and is complete. I will choose `People v. Shank` as it is the most substantial “main” opinion provided that is complete within the provided pages. Or I can pick the first complete one. Let‘s look at the flow. `Bracewell` is very short. `Shank` is longer. Actually, the instruction says “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion... Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Let‘s process `People v. Shank` as it has the fullest body text across the pages provided. ### People v. Shank - Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Shank, Appellant. - Short Name: People v. Shank - Citation: 808 NYS2d 533 - Court: Erie County Court (Appellate Division, Fourth Department style, but the case info says Erie County Court is where it‘s from). Actually, these are Appellate Division, Fourth Department reports (indicated by the judges Pigott, Jr., P.J., Gorski, Smith, Green and Hayes, JJ. who were in the 4th Dept at that time). - Date: Not explicitly given as the decision date for Shank on page 1/2, but usually found at the start of the term or the case list. However, the appeal is from a June 25, 2003 judgment. Usually, the decision date is at the top of the page or section, but it‘s not visible here. I will look for other clues. - Citations to include: `People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]`, `People v Fuzia, 4 AD3d 373 [2004]`, `People v Kane, 240 AD2d 516 [1997]`, `People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419, 428 [1979]`, `People v Hasenflue, 252 AD2d 829, 831-832 [1998]`, `People v Bowers, 201 AD2d 830 [1994]`, `People v Cole, 178 AD2d 1016 [1991]`, `People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]`. Let‘s re-read: “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” `People v. Shank` caption starts on page 812. Memorandum ends on page 814. `People v. Bracewell` caption and memorandum are entirely on page 812. I‘ll go with `People v. Shank` as it is the most complete “long” opinion. **Metadata for People v. Shank:** - Case name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JOSEPH SHANK, Appellant. - Short name: People v. Shank - Citation: 808 NYS2d 533 - Court: N.Y. App. Div. (Fourth Department - identified by judges) - Date: No specific decision date on these pages, but the context is early 2000s reporter. I will leave date out of `midpage-date` if not found, or use the year if certain. Actually, looking at the citations, it‘s after 2004 (mentions 4 AD3d 373 [2004]). Wait, these fragments usually come from a specific date‘s term. I‘ll omit the date from the header if not found on the page. **Wait**, the OCR for Bracewell mentions rendered December 9, 2003. Shank says rendered June 25, 2003. Morgan says December 22, 2003. These are dates of the lower court judgment, not the appellate decision date. The page header at the top of 812, 813, 814 is blacked out. Let‘s look at the reporter page numbers: 812, 813, 814. **Processing Shank:** Page 812 starts the caption. Page 813 starts the description of the appeal and the order. Then the memorandum. Page 814 finishes the memorandum and signature block. **Citations in Shank:** 1. `808 NYS2d 533` 2. `People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]` 3. `People v Fuzia, 4 AD3d 373 [2004]` 4. `People v Kane, 240 AD2d 516 [1997]` 5. `People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419, 428 [1979]` 6. `People v Hasenflue, 252 AD2d 829, 831-832 [1998]` 7. `People v Bowers, 201 AD2d 830 [1994]` 8. `People v Cole, 178 AD2d 1016 [1991]` 9. `People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]` **Law Citations in Shank:** 1. `Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]` -> `N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1192(3)` 2. `§ 1193 [1] [c] [i]` -> `N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1193(1)(c)(i)` 3. `§ 1227 [1]` -> `N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1227(1)` 4. `CPL 470.15 [6] [a]` -> `N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 470.15(6)(a)` Let‘s check the provided text for Shank. - Page 812: `The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Shank, Appellant. [808 NYS2d 533]—` - Page 813: `Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Sheila A. DiTullio, J.), rendered June 25, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of felony driving while intoxicated and four traffic infractions.` - `It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and on the law by reversing that part convicting defendant of operation of a motor vehicle upon a public highway while drinking an alcoholic beverage and dismissing count four of the indictment and as modified the judgment is affirmed.` - `Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a nonjury trial, of felony driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [i]), operation of a motor vehicle upon a public highway while drinking an alcoholic beverage (§ 1227 [1]), and other traffic infractions. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the conviction of driving while intoxicated is not supported by legally sufficient evidence because the People failed to establish that he was intoxicated (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Fuzia, 4 AD3d 373 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 799 [2004]; People v Kane, 240 AD2d 516 [1997]) and, in any event, that contention is without merit. A person is guilty of driving while intoxicated “when the driver has voluntarily consumed alcohol to the extent that he [or she] is incapable of employing the physical and mental abilities which he [or she] is expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver” (People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419, 428 [1979], appeal dismissed 446 US 901 [1980]). A police officer testified at trial that he responded to a call of a suspicious vehicle or noise complaint and observed a vehicle heading towards him without a front license plate. The officer made a U-turn and followed the vehicle into a nearby parking lot, whereupon he observed that the vehicle also did not have a rear license plate. The officer stopped the vehicle and approached defendant, the` - Page 814: `driver of the vehicle. The officer observed that defendant had bloodshot and watery eyes, he detected a strong odor of alcohol on defendant’s breath and, upon conversing with defendant, he noticed that defendant’s speech was slurred. When the officer ordered defendant out of the vehicle, defendant stumbled from the vehicle, using the vehicle for balance. Defendant admitted that he had been drinking and that he was intoxicated. Defendant failed several field sobriety tests and refused to take a breathalyzer test. Contrary to the contention of defendant, the fact that the officer had not observed anything improper in the manner in which defendant drove his vehicle was merely one factor for the trier of fact to consider in determining whether defendant was intoxicated and did not preclude the trier of fact from finding that defendant was guilty of driving while intoxicated. We thus conclude that the conviction of driving while intoxicated is based on legally sufficient evidence, and we further conclude that the verdict with respect to that count is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Hasenflue, 252 AD2d 829, 831-832 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 982 [1998]; People v Bowers, 201 AD2d 830 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 909 [1994]; see also Kane, 240 AD2d 516 [1997]; People v Cole, 178 AD2d 1016 [1991]).` - `We agree with defendant, however, that the conviction of operation of a motor vehicle upon a public highway while drinking an alcoholic beverage is not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), and we therefore modify the judgment accordingly. Although defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review (see Gray, 86 NY2d at 19), we nevertheless exercise our power to review his contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1227 (1) prohibits “[t]he drinking of alcoholic beverages, or the possession of an open container containing an alcoholic beverage, in a motor vehicle located upon the public highways.” Here, the officer testified that he observed an empty beer bottle in defendant’s vehicle. Thus, there was no evidence that the bottle contained alcohol, nor was there evidence that defendant was drinking from the bottle while in the vehicle “located upon [a] public highway[ ]” (id.). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Gorski, Smith, Green and Hayes, JJ.` One detail: `People v. Bracewell` is also a “main opinion” (it has caption, citation, summary, and order/memorandum). But it is shorter. Usually when a document contains several, they are equal in status. I‘ll provide `People v. Shank`. Wait, the instructions say: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion“. This phrasing usually suggests there is one clear main opinion and some scraps. Here we have several short “memorandum” opinions. `Shank` is the longest and most complete across the pages. One complication: `People v. Shank` citation [808 NYS2d 533] is right next to the caption. I will use page numbers 812, 813, 814. Reflowing text: “fol-\nlowed” -> “followed” “de-\nfendant” -> “defendant” “ac-\ncusatory” -> in Bracewell. “fol-\nlowing” -> “following” “in-\ntoxicated” -> “intoxicated” “fol-\nlowed” -> “followed” Wait, I see “fol- lowed” on page 813. OCR says `fol- lowed`. Also “de- fendant” on page 813. Also “ac- cusatory” is in the Bracewell opinion. Let‘s stick to `People v. Shank`. Short Name for `THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v JOSEPH SHANK`: `People v. Shank`. Court: `N.Y. App. Div.` (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department). Abbreviation `N.Y. App. Div.`. Or just `App. Div.` if strictly Bluebook for NY courts. Bluebook says `N.Y. App. Div.`. Let‘s look at the date. The reporter page is 812. The decisions are likely from the same day or session. However, the date isn‘t visible. I will check common citations for these cases. `People v. Shank`, 808 N.Y.S.2d 533 is from Jan 13, 2006. Wait, if I don‘t have it on the page, I shouldn‘t hallucinate. But the prompt asks for `YYYY-MM-DD` if known. Actually, the instruction says: `date` attribute in `YYYY-MM-DD` format (e.g., `date=“2024-03-15“`) and “Preserve formatting exactly (dates...)“. If it‘s not on the page, I‘ll omit it or use what‘s reasonably certain. However, looking at the top of page 1, there‘s no date. I‘ll omit `midpage-date`. Wait, the prompt says: `date=“YYYY-MM-DD“` if known. I‘ll stick to what‘s in the text. The lower court judgment date is June 25, 2003. This is not the opinion date. Case Name formatting: `The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Shank, Appellant.` Short Name: `People v. Shank` Law normalization: - `Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]` -> `N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1192(3)` - `§ 1193 [1] [c] [i]` -> `N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1193(1)(c)(i)` - `§ 1227 [1]` -> `N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1227(1)` - `CPL 470.15 [6] [a]` -> `N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 470.15(6)(a)` Case citations normalization: - `People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]` -> `cite=“86 N.Y.2d 10“`, `pinpoint=“19“`, `court=“N.Y.“`, `date=“1995“` - `People v Fuzia, 4 AD3d 373 [2004]` -> `cite=“4 A.D.3d 373“`, `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`, `date=“2004“` - `People v Kane, 240 AD2d 516 [1997]` -> `cite=“240 A.D.2d 516“`, `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`, `date=“1997“` - `People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419, 428 [1979]` -> `cite=“48 N.Y.2d 419“`, `pinpoint=“428“`, `court=“N.Y.“`, `date=“1979“` - `People v Hasenflue, 252 AD2d 829, 831-832 [1998]` -> `cite=“252 A.D.2d 829“`, `pinpoint=“831-832“`, `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`, `date=“1998“` - `People v Bowers, 201 AD2d 830 [1994]` -> `cite=“201 A.D.2d 830“`, `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`, `date=“1994“` - `People v Cole, 178 AD2d 1016 [1991]` -> `cite=“178 A.D.2d 1016“`, `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`, `date=“1991“` - `People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]` -> `cite=“69 N.Y.2d 490“`, `pinpoint=“495“`, `court=“N.Y.“`, `date=“1987“` Signature block: Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Gorski, Smith, Green and Hayes, JJ. Let‘s double check if I should do all or just one. “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion“. Usually, these pages represent a collection of “Memoranda” decisions from a specific day. In reporter terms, each one is an “opinion“. I‘ll convert `People v. Shank` as it‘s the primary one spanning these pages. Page markers: - Page 1 ends with `The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v` - Page 2 (813) starts with `Appeal from a judgment...` - Page 3 (814) starts with `driver of the vehicle. ...` Wait, `Joseph Shank, Appellant. [808 NYS2d 533]—` is on page 812. Page 813 starts at the top. Page 814 starts at the top. Let‘s look at page 1 again. The text for Shank starts after Bracewell. `The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v` `Joseph Shank, Appellant. [808 NYS2d 533]—` Then page 2 (813) starts with: `Appeal from a judgment...` So the page marker `` should be at the start of page 2. Page 1 is 812. One detail: `808 NYS2d 533` is the citation. I will structure it as: - Case Info (Shank) - `Appeal from...` - `It is hereby ordered...` - `Memorandum: ...` - Signature block I should include the citation 808 NYS2d 533 in the header. Wait, looking at the layout: Page 812 has the top half of a case (unnamed), then Bracewell, then the start of Shank. Page 813 has the rest of Shank‘s intro and the start of the memorandum. Page 814 has the rest of Shank‘s memorandum and the start of Morgan. I will focus on `People v. Shank`. Caption: `THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JOSEPH SHANK, Appellant.` Citation: `808 NYS2d 533` Let‘s verify citations again. `People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]` -> `People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]` (preserving original text style inside tag). The prompt says: normalize citations in attributes, but preserve word order and formatting exactly in the body. `People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]` -> `` Wait, Bluebook/Appellate Division style used brackets for years and No. for N.Y. etc. I should keep the body text exactly as is. Wait, is it “86 N.Y.2d” or “86 NY2d“? The text says “86 NY2d“. Attributes should be normalized. Normalized NY court is `N.Y.`. Reporter is `N.Y.2d`. Let‘s refine the Law citations. `Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]` -> `Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]` `§ 1193 [1] [c] [i]` -> `§ 1193 [1] [c] [i]` `§ 1227 [1]` -> `§ 1227 [1]` `CPL 470.15 [6] [a]` -> `CPL 470.15 [6] [a]` One more thing: `Kane, 240 AD2d 516 [1997]` (short form citation). Attribute `case=“People v. Kane“`. Let‘s check the start of page 813. `Appeal from a judgment...` is a new paragraph. `It is hereby ordered...` is a new paragraph. `Memorandum: ...` is a new paragraph. Signature block at the end: ```html

Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Gorski, Smith, Green and Hayes, JJ.

``` Wait, the example signature block is names and titles. Here it‘s a “Present” line. I‘ll put it in a signature div. Or as a paragraph. Usually, the “Present” line in NY opinions is the list of judges. Let‘s do this. Case name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JOSEPH SHANK, Appellant. Citation: 808 NYS2d 533 Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department (inferred from names). Actually, looking at `Bracewell`, it‘s the same judges. These are memorandum opinions of the AD4. One check on page breaks: Page 812 ends with: `The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v` Page 813 (new page) starts with: `Appeal from a judgment...` Wait, where is `Joseph Shank, Appellant. [808 NYS2d 533]—`? Looking at the OCR for page 1: `The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Shank, Appellant. [808 NYS2d 533]—` So the name of the case starts on 812. Page 813 starts after the dash. Text flow: ... Respondent, v Joseph Shank... Wait, let‘s look at the image for page 1. The last line of page 812 is: `The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v` `Joseph Shank, Appellant. [808 NYS2d 533]—` Wait, the image for page 1 shows that Shank start is the very last bit. Wait, look at the black bar at the bottom of page 1. It covers the rest of the Shank header. Wait, I see `THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v` and then `JOSEPH SHANK, Appellant. [808 NYS2d 533]—`. Both are visible on page 1 (812). Wait, no. The OCR for page 1 ends with: `The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Shank, Appellant. [808 NYS2d 533]—` Let me look at the image of page 1 again. Yes, it‘s there at the bottom. Page 813 image starts with the black bar, then `Appeal from a judgment...`. Wait, there is a gap. Usually, between the caption and the summary, there is some space. I‘ll put the page break at the start of page 813. Wait, page 2 (813) OCR starts with `Appeal from a judgment...`. So page 812 ends after the dash `—`. Check page 813 and 814. Page 813 ends with `the`. Page 814 starts with `driver of the vehicle`. So: `... approached defendant, the driver of the vehicle.` Check Citations in the text: `People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]` `Gray, 86 NY2d at 19` (short form) `Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1227 (1)` on page 814. One more: `(id.)`. `` Actually, the last law cite was `Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1227 (1)`. So `(id.)` refers to that. `id.` Let‘s double check `People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]`. `446 US 901 [1980]` is a cite to the Supreme Court dismissing the appeal of Cruz. `People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419, 428 [1979], appeal dismissed 446 US 901 [1980]` I will tag `446 US 901` as its own case tag for history. Final review of the Shank opinion text: “fol- lowed” -> followed “de- fendant” -> defendant One more: `[or she]` in quotes. Preserve straight brackets if they are in the source. OCR shows `[or she]`. Citations: `People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]` -> `86 N.Y.2d 10` `People v Fuzia, 4 AD3d 373 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 799 [2004]` -> `4 A.D.3d 373` and `2 N.Y.3d 799` `People v Kane, 240 AD2d 516 [1997]` -> `240 A.D.2d 516` `People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419, 428 [1979]` -> `48 N.Y.2d 419` `People v Hasenflue, 252 AD2d 829, 831-832 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 982 [1998]` -> `252 A.D.2d 829` and `92 N.Y.2d 982` `People v Bowers, 201 AD2d 830 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 909 [1994]` -> `201 A.D.2d 830` and `83 N.Y.2d 909` `Kane, 240 AD2d 516 [1997]` (Short) `People v Cole, 178 AD2d 1016 [1991]` -> `178 A.D.2d 1016` `People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]` -> `69 N.Y.2d 490` The abbreviation for Appellate Division Reports in Bluebook is `A.D.2d` or `A.D.3d`. In normalization I should use these. Final layout: `

` block. `` Case content. The caption for Shank is: `The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Shank, Appellant. [808 NYS2d 533]—` I‘ll put this as Case Name and Citation. Wait, page 812 starts with the end of a previous case. Then Bracewell starts. Then Shank starts. I‘ll skip the previous case fragment. I‘ll include the Shank part from 812. One detail: `(Sheila A. DiTullio, J.)`. This goes in `midpage-judge`. Court: Erie County Court. This is the lower court. The appellate court is AD4. Wait, looking at the layout: “Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court...” The header/citation `808 NYS2d 533` refers to the Appellate Division‘s decision. Court in details should be `N.Y. App. Div.`. Let‘s begin. Case info: Short name: People v. Shank Docket: Not given Court: N.Y. App. Div. (4th Dept) Citation: 808 NYS2d 533 Text on 812: `The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Shank, Appellant. [808 NYS2d 533]—` Text on 813: `Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Sheila A. DiTullio, J.), rendered June 25, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of felony driving while intoxicated and four traffic infractions.` `It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and on the law by reversing that part convicting defendant of operation of a motor vehicle upon a public highway while drinking an alcoholic beverage and dismissing count four of the indictment and as modified the judgment is affirmed.` `Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a nonjury trial, of felony driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [i]), operation of a motor vehicle upon a public highway while drinking an alcoholic beverage (§ 1227 [1]), and other traffic infractions. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the conviction of driving while intoxicated is not supported by legally sufficient evidence because the People failed to establish that he was intoxicated (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Fuzia, 4 AD3d 373 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 799 [2004]; People v Kane, 240 AD2d 516 [1997]) and, in any event, that contention is without merit. A person is guilty of driving while intoxicated “when the driver has voluntarily consumed alcohol to the extent that he [or she] is incapable of employing the physical and mental abilities which he [or she] is expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver” (People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419, 428 [1979], appeal dismissed 446 US 901 [1980]). A police officer testified at trial that he responded to a call of a suspicious vehicle or noise complaint and observed a vehicle heading towards him without a front license plate. The officer made a U-turn and followed the vehicle into a nearby parking lot, whereupon he observed that the vehicle also did not have a rear license plate. The officer stopped the vehicle and approached defendant, the` Text on 814: `driver of the vehicle. ... [continues to signature block]` Law tags: `§ 1192 [3]` -> `§ 1192 [3]` Note: normalize brackets to parens for cite, keep brackets in text. Citation boundaries: `People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]` `lv denied 2 NY3d 799 [2004]` (this is subsequent history, usually separate case tag? No, it‘s just the denial of leave). I‘ll treat it as a separate case tag. Wait, `appeal dismissed 446 US 901 [1980]` I will tag the main case and then the dismissal. Actually, standard procedure: `, appeal dismissed, `. Wait, the source text for Shank says `(see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Fuzia, 4 AD3d 373 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 799 [2004]; People v Kane, 240 AD2d 516 [1997])`. I‘ll tag each case. Final check on the `(id.)` at the end of page 814. It‘s inside a parenthetical. `... “located upon [a] public highway[ ]” (id.).` This refers to `Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1227 (1)`. One more thing: `Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1227 (1)` appears on page 814 again. And `CPL 470.15 [6] [a]` on page 814. Wait, `Gray, 86 NY2d at 19`. `` One detail: `Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Gorski, Smith, Green and Hayes, JJ.` is on page 814. I will place it at the end. Is there any other complete opinion? `People v. Bracewell` is also complete. But `Shank` is better. Wait, Bracewell‘s judges are: `Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Gorski, Smith, Green and Hayes, JJ.` (Same list). The entire page 812, 813, 814 is a sequence. I‘ll proceed with `People v. Shank`. Page 812 text: The text `The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Shank, Appellant. [808 NYS2d 533]—` is on page 812. I will start with `` immediately after details. Then the caption. Then ``. Then the summary. Wait, the prompt says: “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“. So the caption `THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JOSEPH SHANK, Appellant.` and the citation `808 NYS2d 533` should be in the `

` block and removed from the body. Same for the judge `Sheila A. DiTullio, J.`. Actually, in some instructions, the summary part is kept. “Include ALL content before the main opinion text... Headnotes... Attorney listings... any other prefatory material.” The caption/summary is prefatory. However, “Case caption blocks (if already fully extracted to Case Information) — do not repeat court name, party names, or docket in the body“. So I will omit the names and citation line from the body. The “Appeal from a judgment...” paragraph is summary/prefatory. The “It is hereby ordered...” paragraph is the court‘s order. The “Memorandum: ...” is the opinion body. So Shank starts on 813 for the body content. The caption on 812 is extracted. Let‘s look at the `details` tag again. - `midpage-case-name`: shortName=“People v. Shank” - `midpage-citation`: 808 NYS2d 533 - `midpage-judge`: Sheila A. DiTullio, J. - `midpage-court`: N.Y. App. Div. Date: Not found. Let‘s go. Wait, looking at the image for page 1, there is a bold heading: **THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JOSEPH SHANK, Appellant. [808 NYS2d 533]—** It‘s part of the flow. I will omit it if it‘s in details. One check on “rejoining hyphens“: “fol- lowed” -> “followed” “de- fendant” -> “defendant” “ac- cusatory” -> “accusatory” (Bracewell) “in- toxicated” -> “intoxicated” “non- jury” -> “nonjury” (Wait, “non-jury” is a compound word usually, but OCR says `nonjury` and `non-jury`. In the text: `nonjury`. I will follow text.) Wait, page 813 OCR: `following a nonjury trial`. Page 814: `in- toxicated`? No, OCR says `intoxicated`. Rejoin `fol- lowed` -> `followed`. Let‘s do this.