People v. Rivera
| Citation | 911 N.Y.S.2d 671,78 A.D.3d 1202 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., appellant, v. Carlos M. RIVERA, respondent. |
| Decision Date | 30 November 2010 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Gary Fidel and Edward D. Saslaw of counsel), for appellant.
[911 N.Y.S.2d 672, 78 A.D.3d 1202]
Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grosso, J.), dated March 24, 2009, which, after a hearing, granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed.
In its suppression ruling, the Supreme Court found the testimony of a police officer, the People's sole witness, regarding the events surrounding the stop of the defendant's vehicle and the defendant's arrest, to be incredible. The resolution of issuesof credibility made by a hearing court is entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless it is manifestly erroneous ( see People v. Sutherland, 40 A.D.3d 890, 891, 837 N.Y.S.2d 662; People v. Collier, 35 A.D.3d 628, 629, 826 N.Y.S.2d 894; People v. Ortiz, 31 A.D.3d 580, 817 N.Y.S.2d 671). The Supreme Court's determination as to the officer's credibility, which it supported with reasons fully articulated on the record, was not manifestly erroneous ( cf. People v. Hills, 295 A.D.2d 365, 743 N.Y.S.2d 525). Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly suppressed, as fruit of the defendant's illegal arrest, physical evidence taken from the trunk of another vehicle, which the police opened using a key seized from the defendant incident to the arrest ( see People v. Gethers, 86 N.Y.2d 159, 162, 630 N.Y.S.2d 281, 654 N.E.2d 102; People v. Dodt, 61 N.Y.2d 408, 417, 474 N.Y.S.2d 441, 462 N.E.2d 1159). Contrary to the People's contention, suppression was warranted, regardless of whether the defendant had an expectation of privacy in the vehicle from which the "fruits" were seized ( see People v. Voner, 74 A.D.3d 1371, 904 N.Y.S.2d 225; People v. Citriniti,303 A.D.2d 419, 756 N.Y.S.2d 278; People v. Curatolo, 76 A.D.2d 524, 431 N.Y.S.2d 713; People v. Rizwan, 165 Misc.2d 985, 630 N.Y.S.2d 675).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Perez
...to challenge either the initial intrusion by the police or a possessory interest in the particular item seized ( People v. Rivera, 78 A.D.3d 1202, 1203, 911 N.Y.S.2d 671 [2nd Dept.2010],lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 835, 921 N.Y.S.2d 200, 946 N.E.2d 188;People v. Citriniti, 303 A.D.2d 419, 419–420, 7......
-
People v. Rich
...presented or fair response to the defense summation ( see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109-110, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564;78 A.D.3d 1202People v. Salnave, 41 A.D.3d 872, 874, 838 N.Y.S.2d 657). With respect to the challenged remarks made by the prosecutor during the cross-examina......
-
People v. Johnson
...as to the two police officers' credibility was not manifestly erroneous and was supported by the record ( see People v. Rivera, 78 A.D.3d 1202, 911 N.Y.S.2d 671; cf. People v. Hills, 295 A.D.2d 365, 743 N.Y.S.2d 525). Accordingly, we do not disturb the hearing court's finding that the traff......
- Robinson v. Heath