People v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 06 August 2014 |
| Citation | 120 A.D.3d 519,990 N.Y.S.2d 635,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05660 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Kamell TAYLOR, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
120 A.D.3d 519
990 N.Y.S.2d 635
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05660
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Kamell TAYLOR, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug. 6, 2014.
[990 N.Y.S.2d 636]
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Tammy Linn of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and William H. Branigan of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), rendered April 17, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements made by him to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the hearing court improperly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence because the testimony of the arresting officer at the pretrial suppression hearing was incredible and patently tailored to overcome constitutional objections. However, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to raise this specific claim before the hearing court ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Inge, 90 A.D.3d 675, 676, 933 N.Y.S.2d 879;People v. Rivera, 27 A.D.3d 489, 490, 812 N.Y.S.2d 575). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. “The credibility determinations of a hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record”
( People v. Inge, 90 A.D.3d at 676, 933 N.Y.S.2d 879;see People v. Moran, 68 A.D.3d 786, 787, 891 N.Y.S.2d 109;People v. Martinez, 58 A.D.3d 870, 870–871, 873 N.Y.S.2d 128). As the arresting officer testified that he saw a gun in plain view in the defendant's waistband, the officer had probable cause to arrest him ( see People v. Madrid, 52 A.D.3d 530, 531, 859 N.Y.S.2d 717;People v. Haynes, 16 A.D.3d 434, 435, 790 N.Y.S.2d 542). On appeal, the defendant asserts no independent ground for the suppression of his statements to law enforcement officials. Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress both...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Faulk
...the specific contentions he now raises (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Baez , 175 A.D.3d 553, 555, 107 N.Y.S.3d 385 ; People v. Taylor , 120 A.D.3d 519, 520, 990 N.Y.S.2d 635 ). In any event, these contentions are without merit. The testimony adduced at the hearing demonstrated that the arre......
-
People v. Fermin
...any of the comments were improper, they were not so flagrant or pervasive as to deny the defendant a fair trial (see People v. Taylor, 120 A.D.3d 519, 521, 990 N.Y.S.2d 635 ; People v. Persaud, 98 A.D.3d 527, 529, 949 N.Y.S.2d 431 ). We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that he w......
-
People v. Pringle
...remarks made by the prosecutor during his summation is also unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Taylor, 120 A.D.3d 519, 520, 990 N.Y.S.2d 635 ). In any event, most of the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing......
-
People v. Young
...deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Romero , 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89 ; People v. Taylor , 120 A.D.3d 519, 521, 990 N.Y.S.2d 635 ; People v. Persaud , 98 A.D.3d 527, 529, 949 N.Y.S.2d 431 ). The remainder of the summation remarks challenged by the......
-
Objections & related procedures
...Asbestos Litigation , 188 A.D.2d 214, 593 N.Y.S.2d 43 (1st Dept. 1993), af ’d 82 N.Y.2d 342, 604 N.Y.S.2d 884 (1993); People v. Taylor , 120 A.D.3d 519, 520, 990 N.Y.S.2d 635, 637 (2d Dept. 2014) (“A general objection to a remark made during a summation is insuicient to preserve a claim for......
-
Objections & related procedures
...56 N.Y.2d 835, 452 N.Y.S.2d 568 (1982); People v. Mais , 133 A.D.3d 687, 688–89, 20 N.Y.S.3d 129, 131 (2d Dept. 2015); People v. Taylor , 120 A.D.3d 519, 520, 990 N.Y.S.2d 635, 637 (2d Dept. 2014) (“A general objection to a remark made during a summation is insufficient to preserve a claim ......
-
Objections & related procedures
...Asbestos Litigation , 188 A.D.2d 214, 593 N.Y.S.2d 43 (1st Dept. 1993), af ’d 82 N.Y.2d 342, 604 N.Y.S.2d 884 (1993); People v. Taylor , 120 A.D.3d 519, 520, 990 N.Y.S.2d 635, 637 (2d Dept. 2014) (“A general objection to a remark made during a summation is insuicient to preserve a claim for......
-
Objections & related procedures
...Asbestos Litigation , 188 A.D.2d 214, 593 N.Y.S.2d 43 (1st Dept. 1993), af ’d 82 N.Y.2d 342, 604 N.Y.S.2d 884 (1993); People v. Taylor , 120 A.D.3d 519, 520, 990 N.Y.S.2d 635, 637 (2d Dept. 2014) (“A general objection to a remark made during a summation is insuicient to preserve a claim for......