Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied access to counsel before consenting to a blood test. It is well settled that a defendant who has been arrested for driving while intoxicated, but not yet formally charged in court, generally has the right to consult with a lawyer before deciding whether to consent to a sobriety test, if he requests the assistance of counsel and no danger of delay is posed (see, People v. Gursey, 22 N.Y.2d 224, 229; People v. O'Rama, 162 A.D.2d 727, revd on other grounds 78 N.Y.2d 270). However, a defendant does not have the right to refuse the test until a lawyer reaches the scene (see, People v. O'Rama, supra).
The police officers' efforts to contact the defendant's attorney were reasonable and sufficient under the circumstances of this case (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 Veh. Traf.[2]; People v. Gursey, supra; People v. O'Rama, supra). Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the results of the test performed on blood taken from the defendant after he consented to the test in the absence of an attorney.
Mangano, P. J., Friedmann, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.