In People v. Bayer (132 A.D.2d 920 [4th Dept 1987]), the Court held that the inclusion of the phrase "while under the influence of alcohol or drugs" in the factual part of the accusatory instrument did not render an indictment charging defendant with violating Vehicle and Traffic Law 1192 (3) unconstitutionally vague or defective. In so doing, the Court explained that Vehicle and Traffic Law 1192 is entitled "Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs," and "contains three subdivisions relating to alcohol (subds [1], [2], [3]) and one relating to drugs (subd [4])." Id. at 920.) The Court further stated that even though subdivision (3) does not specify the substance that creates the intoxication, "[i]t is clear as a matter of law, however, that the subdivision is intended to apply only to intoxication caused by alcohol." (Id.) The Court explained that this conclusion was buttressed by an examination of section 1196 (1) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (now Vehicle and Traffic Law 1192 [9]) which permits conviction of a violation of subdivision (1), (2) or (3) of section 1192, notwithstanding that the defendant is only charged with violating subdivision (2) or (3), but does not permit conviction of a violation of subdivision (4) under those circumstances. (Id.) The Court finally added that "[d]efendant may not be convicted under [Vehicle and Traffic Law 1192 (3)] unless the People prove that defendant was in an intoxicated condition resulting from the influence of alcohol." Id. at 921.)