People v. Savignon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Savignon

15 A.D.3d 289, 789 N.Y.S.2d 427, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1694

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 289 (People v. Savignon) 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. Savignon, 15 A.D.3d 289, 789 N.Y.S.2d 427, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John A.K. Bradley, J., at hearing; Daniel E FitzGerald, J., at plea and sentence), rendered January 30, 2003, convicting defendant of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of six months and five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The officer’s testimony clearly established a lawful predicate for defendant’s arrest, and there is no basis upon which to conclude that this testimony was fabricated. We also conclude that the court accorded defendant ample scope of cross-examination at the hearing. Concur— Tom, J.E, Andrias, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John A.K. Bradley, J., at hearing; Daniel E FitzGerald, J., at plea and sentence), rendered January 30, 2003, convicting defendant of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of six months and five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The officer’s testimony clearly established a lawful predicate for defendant’s arrest, and there is no basis upon which to conclude that this testimony was fabricated. We also conclude that the court accorded defendant ample scope of cross-examination at the hearing. Concur— Tom, J.E, Andrias, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 289, 789 N.Y.S.2d 427, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-savignon-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack