People v. Esposito
This text of 301 A.D.2d 660 (People v. Esposito) 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.
Opinion
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marras, J.), rendered November 19, 2001, convicting him of criminal possession of marijuana in the fourth 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.
The factual findings and credibility determinations of a hearing court are entitled to 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 Jakins, 277 AD2d 328; People v Fryar, 276 AD2d 641). The hearing minutes support the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence (see People v Crespo, 292 AD2d 177, lv denied 98 NY2d 709; People v Sergeant, 281 AD2d 438; People v Licurgo, 277 AD2d 396).
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to sever the marijuana possession count from the remaining arson-related counts of the indictment. The proof in support of the arson-related counts would have been material and admissible as evidence-in-chief upon a trial of the drug charge, as the proof related to the reasons for the defendant’s arrest (see CPL 200.20 [2] [b]; People v Bongarzone, 69 NY2d 892, 895; People v Nolan, 277 AD2d 400). Moreover, the defendant made various statements at the time of his arrest on the drug charge which would have been material and admissible as evidence-in-chief upon a trial of the arson-related counts (see People v Nolan, supra; People v Quartieri, 171 AD2d 889). Santucci, J.P., O’Brien, Goldstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
301 A.D.2d 660, 753 N.Y.S.2d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-esposito-nyappdiv-2003.