People v. Inge, 90 A.D.3d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · Go Syfert
People v. Inge, 90 A.D.3d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Kelly (nyappdiv, 2015-08-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Kelly
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
This contention is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to raise this specific contention before the hearing court (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Vann, 92 AD3d 702 [2012]; People v Inge, 90 AD3d 675, 676 [2011]; People v Muriello, 71 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2010]; People v Rivera, 27 AD3d 489, 490 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Taylor
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
However, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to raise this specific claim before the hearing court (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Inge, 90 AD3d 675, 676 [2011]; People v Rivera, 27 AD3d 489, 490 [2006]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Faust
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The seizure of the drugs from the defendant was, therefore, the result of a search incident to a lawful arrest (see People v Inge, 90 AD3d 675, 676 [2011]; People v Parker, 306 AD2d 543 [2003]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Faust
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The seizure of the drugs from the defendant was, therefore, the result of a search incident to a lawful arrest (see People v Inge, 90 AD3d 675, 676 [2011]; People v Parker, 306 AD2d 543 [2003]).
discussed Cited "see" BAXTER, NATHAN, PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the testimony of a detective at the suppression hearing “was patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections and was incredible as a matter of law” (People v Watson, 90 AD3d 1666, 1667 , lv denied 19 NY3d 868 ; see People v Inge, 90 AD3d 675, 676 , lv denied 18 NY3d 958 ; People v Barnwell, 40 AD3d 774, 775 , lv denied 9 NY3d 920 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Baxter
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the testimony of a detective at the suppression hearing “was patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections and was incredible as a matter of law” (People v Watson, 90 AD3d 1666, 1667 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 868 [2012]; see People v Inge, 90 AD3d 675 , 676 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 958 [2012]; People v Barnwell, 40 AD3d 774, 775 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 920 [2007]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Baxter
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the testimony of a detective at the suppression hearing “was patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections and was incredible as a matter of law” (People v Watson, 90 AD3d 1666, 1667 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 868 [2012]; see People v Inge, 90 AD3d 675 , 676 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 958 [2012]; People v Barnwell, 40 AD3d 774, 775 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 920 [2007]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Jamare Inge
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 6, 2011.
90 A.D.3d 675
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

[*676] The defendant contends that the hearing court improperly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence because the testimony of the arresting officer at the pretrial suppression hearing was incredible and patently tailored to overcome constitutional objections. However, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to raise this specific claim before the hearing court (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Rivera, 27 AD3d 489, 490 [2006]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit. “ ‘The credibility determinations of a hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record’ ” (People v Moran, 68 AD3d 786, 787 [2009], quoting People v Martinez, 58 AD3d 870, 870-871 [2009]). The evidence established that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, and the seizure of cocaine from his pocket was legal as arising from a search incident to a lawful arrest (see People v Parker, 306 AD2d 543 [2003]; People v Cooper, 241 AD2d 553, 554 [1997]). Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Leventhal, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.