People v. Fitzgerald

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fitzgerald

137 A.D.3d 934, 25 N.Y.S.3d 906

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2016

Docket2013-10843

StatusPublished

This text of 137 A.D.3d 934 (People v. Fitzgerald) 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. Fitzgerald, 137 A.D.3d 934, 25 N.Y.S.3d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), rendered November 21, 2013, convicting him of driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2), driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3), and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion, made during the trial, to reopen the suppression hearing. The defendant failed to demonstrate that he discovered additional facts, not discoverable with reasonable diligence before the determination of the motion, that would have affected the court’s ultimate determination of his suppression motion (see CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Ekwegbalu, 131 AD3d 982, 984 [2015]; People v Jackson, 97 AD3d 693, 694 [2012]; People v Velez, 39 AD3d 38, 42 [2007]).

Furthermore, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those *935 raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are without merit.

Balkin, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Roman, 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 County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), rendered November 21, 2013, convicting him of driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2), driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3), and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion, made during the trial, to reopen the suppression hearing. The defendant failed to demonstrate that he discovered additional facts, not discoverable with reasonable diligence before the determination of the motion, that would have affected the court’s ultimate determination of his suppression motion (see CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Ekwegbalu, 131 AD3d 982, 984 [2015]; People v Jackson, 97 AD3d 693, 694 [2012]; People v Velez, 39 AD3d 38, 42 [2007]).

Furthermore, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those *935 raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are without merit.

Balkin, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 934, 25 N.Y.S.3d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fitzgerald-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack