People v. Wilson, 96 A.D.3d 980 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Wilson, 96 A.D.3d 980 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. White (nyappdiv, 2016-02-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. White
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Furthermore, since the police had “knowledge of some fact. . . that support [ed] a reasonable suspicion that [the defendant was] armed,” they had the right to frisk the defendant (People v Batista, 88 NY2d 650, 654 [1996]; see People v Moore, 32 NY2d 67, 68-72 [1973]; People v Wilson, 96 AD3d 980, 981 [2012]; People v Zingale, 246 AD2d 613 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lewis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Although, upon the exercise of our factual review power, this Court may make its own findings of fact if it determines that the hearing court incorrectly assessed the evidence (see People v Anderson, 91 AD3d 789 [2012]; People v Meyers, 80 AD3d 715, 716 [2011]; People v Rodriguez, 77 AD3d 280, 284-285 [2010]; People v O’Hare, 73 AD3d 812, 813 [2010]; Matter of Robert D., 69 AD3d 714 , 716-717 [2010]), we cannot say that the hearing court was incorrect in crediting the police officer’s testimony (see People v Wilson, 96 AD3d 980, 981 [2012]; People v McClendon, 92 AD3d 959, 960 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lewis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Although, upon the exercise of our factual review power, this Court may make its own findings of fact if it determines that the hearing court incorrectly assessed the evidence (see People v Anderson, 91 AD3d 789 [2012]; People v Meyers, 80 AD3d 715, 716 [2011]; People v Rodriguez, 77 AD3d 280, 284-285 [2010]; People v O’Hare, 73 AD3d 812, 813 [2010]; Matter of Robert D., 69 AD3d 714 , 716-717 [2010]), we cannot say that the hearing court was incorrect in crediting the police officer’s testimony (see People v Wilson, 96 AD3d 980, 981 [2012]; People v McClendon, 92 AD3d 959, 960 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hobson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The credibility determinations of a hearing court following a suppression hearing are accorded great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Wilson, 96 AD3d 980, 981 [2012]; People v Marinus, 90 AD3d 677 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hobson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The credibility determinations of a hearing court following a suppression hearing are accorded great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Wilson, 96 AD3d 980, 981 [2012]; People v Marinus, 90 AD3d 677 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lewis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Moreover, although, upon the exercise of our factual review power, this Court may make its own findings of fact if it determines that the hearing court incorrectly assessed the evidence (see People v Anderson, 91 AD3d 789 [2012]; People v Meyers, 80 AD3d 715, 716 [2011]; People v Rodriguez, 77 AD3d 280, 284-285 [2010]; People v O’Hare, 73 AD3d 812, 813 [2010]; Matter of Robert D., 69 AD3d 714 , 716-717 [2010]), we cannot say that the hearing court was incorrect in crediting the police officer’s testimony (see People v Dunbar, 104 AD3d 198 [2013]; People v Wilson, 96 AD3d 980, 981 [2012]; P…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lewis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Moreover, although, upon the exercise of our factual review power, this Court may make its own findings of fact if it determines that the hearing court incorrectly assessed the evidence (see People v Anderson, 91 AD3d 789 [2012]; People v Meyers, 80 AD3d 715, 716 [2011]; People v Rodriguez, 77 AD3d 280, 284-285 [2010]; People v O’Hare, 73 AD3d 812, 813 [2010]; Matter of Robert D., 69 AD3d 714 , 716-717 [2010]), we cannot say that the hearing court was incorrect in crediting the police officer’s testimony (see People v Dunbar, 104 AD3d 198 [2013]; People v Wilson, 96 AD3d 980, 981 [2012]; P…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Condon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The credibility determinations of a hearing court are accorded great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Wilson, 96 AD3d 980, 981 [2012]; People v Marinus, 90 AD3d 677, 678 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Condon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The credibility determinations of a hearing court are accorded great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Wilson, 96 AD3d 980, 981 [2012]; People v Marinus, 90 AD3d 677, 678 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Rowley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. *885 “The credibility determinations of the Supreme Court following a suppression hearing are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” (People v Smith, 77 AD3d 980, 981 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Wilson, 96 AD3d 980, 981 [2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Dukieem M. Wilson
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 20, 2012.
96 A.D.3d 980
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), rendered April 21, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty (Hayes, J.), and imposing sentence. The appeal from the judgment brings upon for review the denial, after a hearing (Hayes, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

“ ‘[A]s a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred,’ even if the underlying reason for the stop was to investigate another matter unrelated to the[*981] traffic violation” (People v Sluszka, 15 AD3d 421, 423 [2005], quoting People v Robinson, 97 NY2d 341, 348-349 [2001]; see Whren v United States, 517 US 806, 810 [1996]). Here, the police had probable cause to stop the vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger upon observing that it failed to signal when leaving the curb and entering a public highway (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [d]).

Additionally, “[t]he credibility determinations of the Supreme Court following a suppression hearing are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” (People v Smith, 77 AD3d 980, 981 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Spann, 82 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2011]). Here, contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the testimony of the officers at the hearing was not unbelievable (cf. Matter of Robert D., 69 AD3d 714, 716-717 [2010]). Based on the officers’ testimony, the hearing court properly concluded that the frisking of the defendant which resulted in the seizure of a gun was supported by the requisite predicate of reasonable suspicion by the police that the defendant might be armed (see e.g. People v Batista, 88 NY2d 650 [1996]; People v Benjamin, 51 NY2d 267, 271 [1980]; People v Caicedo, 69 AD3d 954 [2010]; People v Zingale, 246 AD2d 613 [1998]). Angiolillo, J.P., Belen, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.