People v. Rivera, 498 N.E.2d 418 (N.Y. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Rivera, 498 N.E.2d 418 (N.Y. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
46 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Colin (nyappdiv, 2024-10-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Colin (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
The court credited the searching police officer's testimony and discredited defendant's testimony as "simply incredible." Therefore, its factual determination that the drugs, when recovered, were not inside defendant's rectum, is entitled to deference ( see People v Rivera , 68 NY2d 786, 787-788 [1986]; People v Prochilo , 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; People v Moore , 93 AD3d 519, 522 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 865 [2012]; People v Davis , 240 AD2d 309, 309 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 871 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Murray
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
As those findings have ample support in the record, they are entitled to deference (see People v Rivera, 68 NY2d 786, 787-788 [1986]; People v Reid, 2 AD3d 1061, 1062 [2003], lv denied 3 NY3d 646 [2004]; People v Esposito, 191 AD2d 746, 747 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 885 [1993]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ceballos
N.Y. App. Div. · 1991 · confidence medium
"This is not a case where testimony is so flawed that findings as to a witness’s credibility made from the unique perspective of the trier of fact must be overridden” (People v Rivera, supra, at 788 [citations omitted]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Addison
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
We conclude on this record that the officers' testimony "was not so inherently incredible or improbable as to warrant disturbing the . . . court's determination of credibility" after it was presented with the initial omissions and subsequent explanations ( Walters , 52 AD3d at 1274 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally People v Rivera , 68 NY2d 786, 787-788 [1986]; People v Mayes , 90 AD2d 879, 880 [3d Dept 1982]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Leslie Rivera, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Sep 9, 1986.
498 N.E.2d 418
1986 N.Y. LEXIS 20097
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Jane K. Falcon and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant., Mario Merola, District Attorney (Cindy Rainbow of counsel), for respondent.
Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., Concur.
Cited by 44 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The sole issue raised by defendant on this appeal from the denial of his suppression motion is that the testimony of the arresting officer should have been rejected, as a matter of law, as incredible; only if the officer’s testimony is credited was there probable cause for the search. Each of the three alleged inconsistencies between the officer’s testimony and prior accounts was brought out during the officer’s examination and[*788] separately considered by the trier of fact, who concluded from his observation of the witness and review of the evidence that the officer’s testimony at the suppression hearing was credible. This is not a case where testimony is so flawed that findings as to a witness’s credibility made from the unique perspective of the trier of fact must be overridden (see, People v Reed, 64 NY2d 1144, 1147; People v Concepcion, 38 NY2d 211, 213).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.