People v. Britton, 49 A.D.3d 893 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Britton, 49 A.D.3d 893 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …with its particular advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses, at p. 894 ✓
20 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Nelson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
"The credibility determination[s] of the hearing court, with its particular advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses, [are] entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous" ( People v Britton , 49 AD3d 893, 894 [2008] [citations omitted], lv denied 10 NY3d 956 [2008]; accord People v Davidson , 150 AD3d 1142, 1143-1144 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1018 [2017]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hargrove (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Since the Supreme Court's credibility determination is supported by the record, we decline to disturb it ( see People v Britton , 49 AD3d at 894; see also People v Martinez , 58 AD3d at 870-871 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Thibodeau
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
First, we conclude that the court was entitled to determine, in view of the circumstances of Pierce’s identification of Steen, that his testimony was simply not credible (see People v Jimenez, 142 AD3d 149, 157 [2016]; People v Britton, 49 AD3d 893, 894 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 956 [2008]; People v Watson, 152 AD2d 954, 955 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 900 [1989]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Davidson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
“The credibility determination of the hearing court, with its particular advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses, is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous” *1144 (People v Britton, 49 AD3d 893, 894 [2008] [citation omitted]; see People v Jacobs, 65 AD3d 594, 595 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. VanDeusen
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
County Court credited the testimony of defense counsel over conflicting proof, an assessment that is “entitled to great deference on appeal,” and we find that its decision to do so is supported by the record (People v Britton, 49 AD3d 893, 894 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 956 [2008]; accord People v Bodah, 67 AD3d 1195, 1196 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 838 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bryant
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
In the context of a CPL 440.10 motion, the credibility determinations of the hearing court, “with its particular advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses,” are entitled to “great deference on appeal” (People v Britton, 49 AD3d 893, 894 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 956 [2008]; see People v Jacobs, 65 AD3d 594, 595 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 836 [2009]), and they should not be disturbed “unless clearly erroneous” (People v Jamison, 188 AD2d 551, 551 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 841 [1993]; see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bryant
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
In the context of a CPL 440.10 motion, the credibility determinations of the hearing court, “with its particular advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses,” are entitled to “great deference on appeal” (People v Britton, 49 AD3d 893, 894 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 956 [2008]; see People v Jacobs, 65 AD3d 594, 595 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 836 [2009]), and they should not be disturbed “unless clearly erroneous” (People v Jamison, 188 AD2d 551, 551 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 841 [1993]; see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. DiPippo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Under the circumstances, including the failure of the trial record to support trial counsel’s hearing testimony and his re sponse to the lengthy hypothetical posed to him at the hearing by the defendant’s attorney, we need not defer to the Supreme Court’s determination finding trial counsel credible (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Bhattacharjee, 51 AD3d 684 [2008]; People v Britton, 49 AD3d 893, 894 [2008]; People v Francis, 44 AD3d 788, 789 [2007]; cf. People v Knudsen, 34 AD3d 496, 497 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bodah
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Such credibility assessments are “entitled to great deference on appeal” (People v Britton, 49 AD3d 893, 894 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 956 [2008]), and we find that the court’s determination is well supported by the analysis of the conflicting testimony set forth in the decision.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hardie
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
The credibility determinations of the hearing court will not be disturbed where there is support in the record for such determinations and there is no showing that they were clearly erroneous (see People v Bennett, 57 AD3d 912 [2008]; People v Timmons, 54 AD3d 883 [2008]; People v Britton, 49 AD3d 893, 894 [2008]; People v Washington, 182 AD2d 791 [1992]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Demolaire
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, viewed in totality as of the time of representation, reveal that trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Britton, 49 AD3d 893, 894 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 956 [2008]; People v Jean, 21 AD3d 499 [2005]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Brentnol A. Britton
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 25, 2008.
49 A.D.3d 893
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published

[*894] The defendant’s contention that the judgment of conviction should have been vacated based on newly-discovered evidence is without merit. The hearing court found that the testimony regarding the alleged new evidence proffered by the defendant was not credible. The credibility determination of the hearing court, with its particular advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses, is entitled to great deference on appeal (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]) and will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous (see People v Francis, 44 AD3d 788, 789 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1033 [2008]; People v Stevens, 43 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1039 [2008]; People v Jamison, 188 AD2d 551 [1992]). We discern no basis in the record to disturb the court’s determination in this case.

Similarly unavailing is the defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. The evidence presented by the defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s allegedly deficient conduct (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Jordan, 44 AD3d 875 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1035 [2008]). The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, viewed in totality as of the time of representation, reveal that trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.