People v. Natiello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Natiello

294 A.D.2d 451, 741 N.Y.S.2d 742, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4909

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

DecidedMay 13, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 451 (People v. Natiello) 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. Natiello, 294 A.D.2d 451, 741 N.Y.S.2d 742, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered September 26, 2000, convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon her plea of guilty, 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 certain physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the police officer’s hearing [452]*452testimony was incredible is unpersuasive. It is well settled that the factual findings and credibility determinations of the hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal and its conclusions will not be set aside unless manifestly erroneous or unsupported by the record (see People v Curry, 213 AD2d 664). Here, there is no basis to disturb the hearing court’s determination since the officer’s testimony was neither incredible as a matter of law nor patently tailored to overcome constitutional objections (see People v Curry, supra).

Moreover, the police officer had probable cause to search the contents of the defendant’s vehicle (see People v Guido, 175 AD2d 364; People v Martin, 169 AD2d 1006).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Altman, J.P., Schmidt, Townes and Cozier, 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, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered September 26, 2000, convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon her plea of guilty, 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 certain physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the police officer’s hearing [452]*452testimony was incredible is unpersuasive. It is well settled that the factual findings and credibility determinations of the hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal and its conclusions will not be set aside unless manifestly erroneous or unsupported by the record (see People v Curry, 213 AD2d 664). Here, there is no basis to disturb the hearing court’s determination since the officer’s testimony was neither incredible as a matter of law nor patently tailored to overcome constitutional objections (see People v Curry, supra).

Moreover, the police officer had probable cause to search the contents of the defendant’s vehicle (see People v Guido, 175 AD2d 364; People v Martin, 169 AD2d 1006).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Altman, J.P., Schmidt, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 451, 741 N.Y.S.2d 742, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-natiello-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack