People v. Hobson
| Decision Date | 27 November 2013 |
| Citation | 111 A.D.3d 958,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 07987,975 N.Y.S.2d 682 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Fitzroy HOBSON, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Casey Rose Scott of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky, and Brooke T. Mickelson of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered June 29, 2010, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and unlawful possession of marijuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Kamins, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that the testimony of the police officers at the suppression hearing was tailored to establish a sufficient factual predicate for the police action leading to the recovery of the gun and marijuana from his person, and that the hearing court erred in crediting the officers' testimony, is without merit. The credibility determinations of a hearing court following a suppression hearing are accorded great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380; People v. Wilson, 96 A.D.3d 980, 981, 948 N.Y.S.2d 77; People v. Marinus, 90 A.D.3d 677, 933 N.Y.S.2d 872). Here, the record supports the Supreme Court's determination to credit the officers' testimony. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony was not incredible, patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections, or otherwise unworthy of belief ( see People v. Condon, 100 A.D.3d 920, 954 N.Y.S.2d 212; People v. McClendon, 92 A.D.3d 959, 960, 939 N.Y.S.2d 530; People v. Anderson, 91 A.D.3d 789, 937 N.Y.S.2d 109; People v. Johnson, 83 A.D.3d 733, 734, 919 N.Y.S.2d 891; People v. Glenn, 53 A.D.3d 622, 623–624, 861 N.Y.S.2d 781).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kelly
...hearing are accorded great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” (People v. Hobson, 111 A.D.3d 958, 959, 975 N.Y.S.2d 682 ; see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380 ; People v. Vargas, 123 A.D.3d 1149, 9......
-
People v. Sarkodie
...objections, or otherwise unworthy of belief (see People v. Pleasant , 146 A.D.3d 985, 987, 46 N.Y.S.3d 643 ; People v. Hobson , 111 A.D.3d 958, 959, 975 N.Y.S.2d 682 ). Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's denial of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppre......
-
People v. Grant
...Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 413, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Johnson, 139 A.D.3d at 970, 34 N.Y.S.3d 62 ; People v. Hobson, 111 A.D.3d 958, 959, 975 N.Y.S.2d 682 ; People v. Baliukonis, 35 A.D.3d 626, 627, 829 N.Y.S.2d 112 ). Here, the defendant contends that law enforcement offi......
-
In re Southern
...N.Y.S.2d 658; People v. Taylor, 120 A.D.3d 519, 990 N.Y.S.2d 635; People v. Jarvis, 117 A.D.3d 969, 985 N.Y.S.2d 889; People v. Hobson, 111 A.D.3d 958, 975 N.Y.S.2d 682; People v. Washington, 108 A.D.3d 578, 579, 970 N.Y.S.2d 36). Although our dissenting colleague places great weight upon t......