In People v. Berg, 92 N.Y.2d 701 (1999), the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether various field sobriety tests, including the HGN test, were testimonial in nature. The Court of Appeals stated "the results of field sobriety tests such as the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus ... are not deemed testimonial ..." and "thus, results of such tests may be introduced despite failure of police to administer prior Miranda warnings." The Court of Appeals held that the defendant's refusal to perform field sobriety tests such as reciting the alphabet was admissible. The Court analogized the refusal to perform field sobriety tests to the refusal to permit a chemical analysis test under Vehicle and Traffic Law 1194 (2) (f). The Court stated that it was "constitutionally insignificant" that one was statutorily authorized while the other was not reasoning that "if evidence is constitutionally permissible, the absence of authorization in a statute does not make it impermissible." (Id. at 706.)