People v. Bloomfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bloomfield

221 A.D.2d 651, 635 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12393

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 27, 1995·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered May 9, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third 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 physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

It is well settled that the determination of the suppression court, having the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, must be accorded great weight on appeal and its determination should not be disturbed if it is supported by the record (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759; People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84; People v Daniels, 190 AD2d 858).

The hearing court’s determination as to the credibility of the officers’ testimony should not be disturbed (see, People v Ruiz, 166 AD2d 302; People v Rodriguez, 164 AD2d 824). Furthermore, the recovery of the gun, which was discarded and abandoned by the defendant during his flight from the police, was lawful (see, Matter of Jerry C., 197 AD2d 685; People v Price, 194 AD2d 634). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ.,concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered May 9, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third 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 physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

It is well settled that the determination of the suppression court, having the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, must be accorded great weight on appeal and its determination should not be disturbed if it is supported by the record (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759; People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84; People v Daniels, 190 AD2d 858).

The hearing court’s determination as to the credibility of the officers’ testimony should not be disturbed (see, People v Ruiz, 166 AD2d 302; People v Rodriguez, 164 AD2d 824). Furthermore, the recovery of the gun, which was discarded and abandoned by the defendant during his flight from the police, was lawful (see, Matter of Jerry C., 197 AD2d 685; People v Price, 194 AD2d 634). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ.,concur.

People v. Bloomfield, 221 A.D.2d 651, 635 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12393 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

221 A.D.2d 651 (People v. Bloomfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related