People v. Wynter

Decision Date05 February 2008
Docket Number2005-03513.
Citation849 N.Y.S.2d 797,48 A.D.3d 492,2008 NY Slip Op 01186
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DAVID WYNTER, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence obtained from his home and the lineup identification. "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 Jenneman, 37 AD3d 736, 737 [2007]; see People v Cristobal, 136 AD2d 558 [1988]). The record supports the hearing court's determination to credit the testimony of the police witness, which established that the defendant's mother voluntarily consented to the search of the defendant's home that he shared with her (see People v Gonzalez, 39 NY2d 122 [1976]) and that the lineup identification procedure was not improperly conducted.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Florio and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. Malaspina
    • United States
    • New York County Court
    • November 14, 2019
    ...made by suppression court are entitled to great weight), People v. Bhattacharjee, 51 A.D.3d 684 [2d Dept 2008] (same), People v. Wynter, 48 A.D.3d 492 [2d Dept 2008] (same)]. The undisputed testimony is that P.O. Muscente has been involved in 50 to 60 DWI investigations in his career. Furth......
  • People v. Wynter
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 2, 2008
    ...N.E.2d 262 10 N.Y.3d 873 PEOPLE v. WYNTER. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. May 2, 2008. Appeal from 2d Dept.: 48 A.D.3d 492, 849 N.Y.S.2d 797 Application for leave to criminal appeal Denied. (Kaye, C.J.) ...
  • People v. Zimmerman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 5, 2008

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