People v. Cantanzaro

• Decision Date: 03 February 1997
• Citation: 236 A.D.2d 418,654 N.Y.S.2d 330
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Harvey CATANZARO, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 330

654 N.Y.S.2d 330

236 A.D.2d 418

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Harvey CATANZARO, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division Second Department.

Feb. 3, 1997.

Harvey Catanzaro, Ossining, appellant pro se.

Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola (Peter A. Weinstein and Bruce E. Whitney, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), rendered March 29, 1988, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and conspiracy in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, 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 statements made by the defendant to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police had probable cause to arrest him. It is now well settled that the statements of codefendants or accomplices may serve to establish probable cause under the Aguilar- Spinelli rule (see, Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637; Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723; see also, People v. McCann, 85 N.Y.2d 951, 626 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 650 N.E.2d 853; People v. Nunez, 186 A.D.2d 764, 589 N.Y.S.2d 64). Moreover, resolutions of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94, 68 N.E. 112). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88, 353 N.Y.S.2d 500). We are satisfied that the hearing court properly credited the testimony of the law enforcement officials (see, People v. Michalek, 218 A.D.2d 750, 630 N.Y.S.2d 782).

There was no credible evidence that law enforcement officials intentionally deprived the then-18-year-old defendant of access to his mother in an effort to bar his exercise of his right of counsel and obtain a confession (see, People v. Casassa, 49 N.Y.2d 668, 427 N.Y.S.2d 769, 404 N.E.2d 1310, cert. denied 449 U.S. 842, 101 S.Ct. 122, 66 L.Ed.2d 50; People v. Thomas, 223 A.D.2d 612, 636 N.Y.S.2d 830; People v. Burton, 191 A.D.2d 307, 595 N.Y.S.2d 41). Nor do we find any credible evidence suggesting that the defendant was threatened...