People v. Corley (Julius)
This text of 71 Misc. 3d 134(A) (People v. Corley (Julius)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
People v Corley (2021 NY Slip Op 50368(U)) [*1]
| People v Corley (Julius) |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 50368(U) [71 Misc 3d 134(A)] |
| Decided on April 27, 2021 |
| Appellate Term, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on April 27, 2021
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McShan, J.P., Brigantti, Hagler, JJ.
570072/17
against
Julius Corley, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Harold Adler, J.), rendered September 8, 2016, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of driving while impaired, and imposing sentence.
Per Curiam.
Judgment of conviction (Harold Adler, J.), rendered September 8, 2016, affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Defendant's contention that the arresting officer's testimony was riddled with contradictions and unworthy of belief is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not raise this argument at the suppression hearing (see CPL § 470.05[2]; People v Britton, 113 AD3d 1101, 1102 [2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 1154 [2014]; People v Diaz, 69 Misc 3d 132[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51210[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 972 [2020], lv dismissed 36 NY3d 1046 [2021]). We decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. Since we do not find the officer's testimony to be manifestly untrue, contrary to common experience, self-contradictory, or tailored, we decline to disturb the court's conclusion that the testimony was credible (see People v Garland, 155 AD3d 527, 529 [2017], affd 32 NY3d 1094 [2018], cert denied ___ US ___, 140 S Ct 2525 [2020]; People v Sanchez, 248 AD2d 306, 307 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 928, 930 [1998]). The officer's observation of a traffic infraction and erratic driving provided probable cause for the stop of defendant's vehicle (see People v Hinshaw, 35 NY3d 427 [2020]; People v Sullivan, 160 AD2d 824 [1990]).
All concur.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Clerk of the Court
Decision Date: April 27, 2021
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
71 Misc. 3d 134(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50368(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-corley-julius-nyappterm-2021.