People v. Baez
| Decision Date | 11 October 1994 |
| Citation | 208 A.D.2d 638,617 N.Y.S.2d 203 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Hector BAEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (David A. Crow, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Sholom J. Twersky, Rosemary Sherman, and Desiree Hamilton, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and BALLETTA, ROSENBLATT and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), rendered April 7, 1992, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the hearing court should have suppressed the narcotics because the testimony of the arresting police officer was incredible. "It is well settled that the determination of the suppression court, with its advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses, must be accorded great weight and should not be set aside unless clearly unsupported by the record" (People v. Overton, 188 A.D.2d 491, 492, 592 N.Y.S.2d 603). Upon review of the hearing record, we find no evidence to support the defendant's claim that the officer's testimony was incredible as a matter of law, patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections, or otherwise unworthy of belief (see, e.g., People v. Santiago, 144 A.D.2d 502, 533 N.Y.S.2d 969). Accordingly, we discern no basis for disturbing the court's denial of suppression.
Similarly unavailing is the defendant's contention that reversal is required because the People elicited evidence that the police knew the defendant by a different name and had placed the apartment from which he exited under surveillance. The trial court sustained a defense objection to the former testimony and promptly provided the jury with a curative instruction, thereby obviating any prejudice to the defendant (see, People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865, 437 N.Y.S.2d 75, 418 N.E.2d 668). Under these circumstances, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's request for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck
... ... And sometimes Mrs. Katzeff just pulls up five or six chairs into the hallway with her challenge group, and people are coming and going. And fortunately they can focus and attend, they are children of greater ability, but it's, it's far from ideal. It's a very ... ...
-
People v. Aguirre
...188 A.D.2d 491, 492, 592 N.Y.S.2d 603; see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380; People v. Baez, 208 A.D.2d 638, 617 N.Y.S.2d 203; People v. Catala, 198 A.D.2d 293, 603 N.Y.S.2d 562). The hearing court evaluated the testimony of the detective in the light of......
-
People v. Zienkowicz
...testimony during trial. However, the court's prompt curative instruction vitiated any prejudice to the defendant (see, People v. Baez, 208 A.D.2d 980, 617 N.Y.S.2d 203). Accordingly, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's request for a mistrial (s......
- People v. Aparicio