People v Hobson

People v Hobson 2013 NY Slip Op 07987 Decided on November 27, 2013 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 27, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO
L. PRISCILLA HALL
JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
2010-07148
(Ind. No. 3159/08)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Fitzroy Hobson, appellant.




Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Casey Rose Scott of counsel),
for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard
Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky, and
Brooke T. Mickelson of counsel), for
respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered June 29, 2010, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and unlawful possession of marijuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Kamins, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contentions that the testimony of the police officers at the suppression hearing was tailored to establish a sufficient factual predicate for the police action leading to the recovery of the gun and marijuana from his person, and that the hearing court erred in crediting the officers' testimony, is without merit. The credibility determinations of a hearing court following a suppression hearing are accorded great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761; People v Wilson, 96 AD3d 980, 981; People v Marinus, 90 AD3d 677). Here, the record supports the Supreme Court's determination to credit the officers' testimony. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony was not incredible, patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections, or otherwise unworthy of belief (see People v Condon, 100 AD3d 920; People v McClendon, 92 AD3d 959, 960; People v Anderson, 91 AD3d 789; People v Johnson, 83 AD3d 733, 734; People v Glenn, 53 AD3d 622, 623-624).
RIVERA, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, HALL and COHEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino [*2]

Clerk of the Court