People v. Cristobal

136 A.D.2d 558, 523 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 329
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 11, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 136 A.D.2d 558 (People v. Cristobal) 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. Cristobal, 136 A.D.2d 558, 523 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 329 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered January 31, 1984, convicting him of criminal posses[559]*559sion of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), and criminal use of drug paraphernalia in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Fuchs, J.), after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress certain evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court found that the defendant consented to the police entry into his apartment. In so finding, the court credited the witnesses for the People and specifically rejected the testimony of the defendant as unworthy of belief. It is settled that issues of credibility are primarily for the hearing court, whose determination will be upheld unless clearly erroneous (see, People v Armstead, 98 AD2d 726; People v Vail, 90 AD2d 917, 918). Notwithstanding the minor inconsistencies in the testimony of some of the People’s witnesses, the record fully supports the hearing court’s determination, which should not be disturbed.

We have considered the defendant’s other contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Fiber, Hooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Wynter
48 A.D.3d 492 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Cristobal
203 A.D.2d 376 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Torres
158 A.D.2d 730 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Eismann
158 A.D.2d 537 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Mitchell
155 A.D.2d 695 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Clement
154 A.D.2d 545 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 A.D.2d 558, 523 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cristobal-nyappdiv-1988.