In People v. Chase (186 Misc 2d 487 [App Term 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 962 [2000]) defendant was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child, driving while impaired, failing to dim high beams, and failing to stay in the traffic lane. The court reversed the defendant's conviction on the endangering charge, finding that "it could not be rationally found that the essential elements of endangering the welfare of a child were established beyond a reasonable doubt" (at 488). The basis for the court's decision was the requirement for endangering the welfare that defendant's acts are "likely" to be harmful to a child less than 17 years old. Said the court (at 488), "conduct which clearly raises a risk of injury to a minor does not necessarily make such injury 'likely'." Absent a "true likelihood of injury which is not speculative" (at 489), the charge of endangering the welfare of a child has not been proven. In so holding the court acknowledged the effect of drinking and driving on accidents, and the primacy of the Legislature in determining what constitutes a crime.