People v. Cooks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cooks

57 A.D.3d 796, 870 N.Y.2d 80

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 16, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 796 (People v. Cooks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Cooks, 57 A.D.3d 796, 870 N.Y.2d 80 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[797]*797The defendant seeks to vacate his plea of guilty by challenging the Supreme Court’s denial, made after an evidentiary hearing, of that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. The “credibility determinations of a hearing court are accorded great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” (People v Umadat, 29 AD3d 830 [2006]; see People v Bhattacharjee, 51 AD3d 684 [2008]; People v Wynter, 48 AD3d 492 [2008]). Here, according deference to the credibility determinations of the hearing court, it cannot be said that the detective’s testimony at the pretrial Mapp/Dunaway hearing (see Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643 [1961]; Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1979]) was incredible as a matter of law, patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections, or otherwise unworthy of belief (see People v Rivera, 27 AD3d 489, 490 [2006]; People v Curry, 213 AD2d 664 [1995]). Skelos, J.E, Santucci, Dillon and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

[797]*797The defendant seeks to vacate his plea of guilty by challenging the Supreme Court’s denial, made after an evidentiary hearing, of that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. The “credibility determinations of a hearing court are accorded great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” (People v Umadat, 29 AD3d 830 [2006]; see People v Bhattacharjee, 51 AD3d 684 [2008]; People v Wynter, 48 AD3d 492 [2008]). Here, according deference to the credibility determinations of the hearing court, it cannot be said that the detective’s testimony at the pretrial Mapp/Dunaway hearing (see Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643 [1961]; Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1979]) was incredible as a matter of law, patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections, or otherwise unworthy of belief (see People v Rivera, 27 AD3d 489, 490 [2006]; People v Curry, 213 AD2d 664 [1995]). Skelos, J.E, Santucci, Dillon and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 796, 870 N.Y.2d 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cooks-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack