People v. Philips, 2000-03865.

Decision Date20 June 2006
Docket Number2000-03865.
Citation2006 NY Slip Op 05040,818 N.Y.S.2d 227,30 A.D.3d 620
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GEORGE PHILIPS, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The arresting officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant pursuant to the "fellow officer rule" (see People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 113-114 [1996]; People v Parris, 83 NY2d 342 [1994]; People v Lypka, 36 NY2d 210, 213 [1975]; People v Artist, 300 AD2d 671 [2002]).

The defendant's contention that the County Court improperly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress inculpatory statements he made after his arrest is partly unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). The defendant never argued before the hearing court that questioning by Detective Partee could commence only after "such a definite, pronounced break in the questioning that the defendant may be said to have returned, in effect, to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning" (People v Robertson, 133 AD2d 355 [1987]; see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Cherry, 302 AD2d 472 [2003]). In any event, there is no basis for disturbing the factual findings and credibility determinations of the hearing court, which are entitled to great deference on appeal (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; People v Lawes, 15 AD3d 417, 418 [2005]; People v Guarino, 267 AD2d 324, 325 [1999]). The record supports the hearing court's finding that the statements were voluntarily made after the defendant waived his Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]; People v Tissiera, 22 AD3d 611 [2005]).

The defendant's claim that the search of his vehicle was unlawful is unpreserved to the extent that he argues that the search exceeded the scope of any consent (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Huntley, 237 AD2d 533 [1997]). In any event, as the hearing court properly found, the defendant consented to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Wright v. Griffin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 1 de novembro de 2017
    ...(FB), 08 CV 2626 (FB), 2011 WL 1984520, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. May 20, 2011) (alteration in original) (quoting People v. Philips, 30 A.D.3d 620, 621, 818 N.Y.S.2d 227, 228 (2d Dep't 2006)). All of these remaining claims, in short, are preserved for federal habeas review. The first of this group of......
  • Philips v. Brown
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 20 de maio de 2011
    ...did, and that leave was denied. See Weiss Decl. at ¶ 71 (Apr. 30, 2009) (noting that application was denied on September 18, 2003); Philips Mem. of Law at 104 ("Petitioner sought leave to appeal the decision[] to the Appellate Division."). The Nassau County trial court focused principally o......
  • People v. Higgins
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 31 de dezembro de 2014
    ...is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Fowler, 101 A.D.3d 898, 898, 954 N.Y.S.2d 919 ; People v. Philips, 30 A.D.3d 620, 620, 818 N.Y.S.2d 227 ). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch......
  • People v. Ormejuste
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 7 de maio de 2014
    ...contention are unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Fowler, 101 A.D.3d 898, 954 N.Y.S.2d 919;People v. Philips, 30 A.D.3d 620, 818 N.Y.S.2d 227). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit ( see People v. White, 40 A.D.3d 662, 836 N.Y.S.2d 204,affd. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT