Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michael Gerstein, J., at trial), rendered August 15, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of driving while impaired.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

On July 2, 2013, the People charged defendant, in an information, with, among other things, driving while impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]), in that, at about 12:05 a.m. on that date, at Georgia Avenue and Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, defendant, operating his vehicle on the Atlantic Avenue service road where the service road and Atlantic Avenue merge, collided with a marked police vehicle. After a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of driving while impaired. On appeal, defendant argues that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence.

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony and assess their credibility (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Upon a review of the record, we find that the trial evidence established that defendant, while driving on the Atlantic Avenue service road, failed to yield the right of way where that road merged with Atlantic Avenue, a well-illuminated area, and struck a marked police vehicle that was slowly moving forward on Atlantic Avenue after having stopped, behind two or three other vehicles, at a red light. The impact, which the police car's operator described as "massive," demolished the police vehicle. The witness, and another officer investigating the incident, observed that defendant exhibited bloodshot, watery eyes, and one of the witnesses, who interviewed defendant in an EMS vehicle, detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath. Defendant admitted to the officers that he had failed to "see" the patrol car and that he had consumed "a couple of beers."

In light of defendant's admission of alcoholic beverage consumption and the physical indicia of impairment observed by the officers, we find that the circumstances of the accident justified an inference that alcohol consumption had impaired the "mental abilities which [defendant] is expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver" (People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419, 427 [1979]). In particular, the failure to yield the right of way, the imprudent speed with which defendant attempted to merge with traffic composed of [*2]automobiles just beginning to regain speed after a signal light stop, the damage that resulted from the impact, and the testimony that a solid wall may have prevented drivers approaching the merge area from the service road from observing traffic on Atlantic Avenue, support the conclusion that defendant failed to exercise the caution and care required by drivers who do not have the right of way and a clear line of sight of traffic. These circumstances collectively justify the finding that defendant's ability to operate his vehicle in a reasonable and prudent manner was impaired and that the alcohol he admitted consuming was the cause (e.g. People v Carota, 93 AD3d 1072, 1075 [2012]; People v Lizzio, 178 AD2d 741, 742 [1991]; People v Shihab, 19 Misc 3d 137[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50808[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2008]). Thus, the conviction was not against the weight of the evidence.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.