People v. Torres

• Decision Date: 25 January 1999
• Citation: 684 N.Y.S.2d 582,257 A.D.2d 672
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 573 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Malik TORRES, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 582

684 N.Y.S.2d 582

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 573

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Malik TORRES, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Jan. 25, 1999.

M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan Garelick of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Thomas M. Ross of counsel), for respondent.

SONDRA MILLER, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, THOMAS R. SULLIVAN and LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), rendered November 19, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, 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 his statements to law enforcement authorities.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in sua sponte reopening the suppression hearing to permit further questioning of Detective Parker before it made a decision on the merits (see, People v. Havelka, 45 N.Y.2d 636, 412 N.Y.S.2d 345, 384 N.E.2d 1269; People v. Colon, 228 A.D.2d 449, 644 N.Y.S.2d 57, revd. on other grounds, 90 N.Y.2d 824, 660 N.Y.S.2d 377, 682 N.E.2d 978; People v. Harrington, 193 A.D.2d 756, 597 N.Y.S.2d 723). Not only are the hearing court's factual findings and credibility determinations entitled to great deference on appeal (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380; People v. Gordon, 242 A.D.2d 640, 664 N.Y.S.2d 750; People v. Pierre, 241 A.D.2d 559, 661 N.Y.S.2d 645), but, on this record, it cannot be said that Detective Parker's testimony at the reopened hearing was patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see, e.g, Matter of Bernice J., 248 A.D.2d 538, 670 N.Y.S.2d 207; People v. Black, 214 A.D.2d 619, 624 N.Y.S.2d 966; People v. Lebron, 184 A.D.2d 784, 585 N.Y.S.2d 498).

In addition to an anonymous informant who had spoken to a detective several times over the course of an investigation, there were two identified informants who provided statements to the police with respect to their knowledge of the defendant's participation in the crime. Accordingly, the hearing court properly concluded that almost two months before the defendant's arrest, there was probable cause to believe that an individual named "Malik", whose description fit the defendant, was...