credibility determinations hearing in New York

2022"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 Martinez , 58 AD3d 870, 870-871 [2009]).

2017“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 Martinez, 58 AD3d 870, 870-871 [2009]).

2022The officer was eventually able to catch the defendant after employing a taser, and placed him in handcuffs. "'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'" ( People v Guzman , 175 AD3d 564 , 564, quoting People v Hobson , 111 AD3d 958, 959 ).

2022ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5). "'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'" ( People v Kelly , 131 AD3d 484, 485 , quoting People v Hobson , 111 AD3d 958, 959 ).

2016The credibility determinations of a hearing court are accorded 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 Condon, 100 AD3d 920 [2012]).

2014“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” (P eople v Hobson, 111 AD3d 958, 959 [2013]; see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Washington, 108 AD3d 578, 579 [2013]; People v Condon 100 AD3d 920, 920 [2012]).

2014The 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 Glover, 84 AD3d 977, 978 [2011]; People v Tandle, 71 AD3d 1176, 1178 [2010]).

2013The 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 Tandle, 71 AD3d 1176, 1178 [2010]; People v Baliukonis, 35 AD3d 626, 627 [2006]).

2009The credibility determinations of the hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal, and its conclusions will not be set aside unless manifestly erroneous or unsupported by the record (see People v Rivera, 27 AD3d 489, 490 [2006]).

2008According great deference to the credibility determinations of the hearing court (see People v Rivera, 27 AD3d 489, 490 [2006]; People v Bell, 18 AD3d 881 [2005]), based upon the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing, we find no error in the hearing court’s determination (see People v Little, 309 AD2d 767 [2003]; United States v McFadden, 238 F3d 198 [2001], cert denied 534 US 898 [2001]).

2013The 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 Tandle, 71 AD3d 1176, 1178 [2010]; People v Baliukonis, 35 AD3d 626, 627 [2006]).

2013The 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 Tandle, 71 AD3d 1176, 1178 [2010]; People v Baliukonis, 35 AD3d 626, 627 [2006]).

2014“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” (People v Hobson, 111 AD3d 958, 959 [2013]; see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Wilson, 96 AD3d *1150 980, 981 [2012]; People v Marinus, 90 AD3d 677 [2011]).

2013The defendant and his wife, on one hand, and Siccardi, on the other, offered contradictory testimony as to whether a particular offer was conveyed to the defendant by Siccardi, giving rise to a credibility issue which the Supreme Court resolved in Siccardi’s favor. “ ‘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 Davis, 103 AD3d 810 , 811 [2013], quoting People v Martinez, 58 AD3d 870, 870-871 [2009]; see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Condon, 10

2013The defendant and his wife, on one hand, and Siccardi, on the other, offered contradictory testimony as to whether a particular offer was conveyed to the defendant by Siccardi, giving rise to a credibility issue which the Supreme Court resolved in Siccardi’s favor. “ ‘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 Davis, 103 AD3d 810 , 811 [2013], quoting People v Martinez, 58 AD3d 870, 870-871 [2009]; see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Condon, 10

2013The defendant and his wife, on one hand, and Siccardi, on the other, offered contradictory testimony as to whether a particular offer was conveyed to the defendant by Siccardi, giving rise to a credibility issue which the Supreme Court resolved in Siccardi’s favor. “ ‘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 Davis, 103 AD3d 810 , 811 [2013], quoting People v Martinez, 58 AD3d 870, 870-871 [2009]; see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Condon, 10

2008“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 Jenneman, 37 AD3d 736, 737 [2007]; see People v Myers, 17 AD3d 699 [2005]; People v Davis, 261 AD2d 411, 412 [1999]).

2008“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 Jenneman, 37 AD3d 736, 737 [2007]; see People v Cristobal, 136 AD2d 558 [1988]).

2014“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” (P eople v Hobson, 111 AD3d 958, 959 [2013]; see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Washington, 108 AD3d 578, 579 [2013]; People v Condon 100 AD3d 920, 920 [2012]).

2014“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” (P eople v Hobson, 111 AD3d 958, 959 [2013]; see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Washington, 108 AD3d 578, 579 [2013]; People v Condon 100 AD3d 920, 920 [2012]).

2012While the authority of the Appellate Division in custody matters is as broad as that of the hearing court, deference should be accorded to the credibility determinations of the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses, and the hearing court’s custody determination should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Nava v Kinsler, 85 AD3d at 1186-1187 ; Matter of Adams v Perryman, 68 AD3d 860, 861 [2009]).

2012While the authority of the Appellate Division in custody matters is as broad as that of the hearing court, deference should be accorded to the credibility determinations of the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses, and the hearing court’s custody determination should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Nava v Kinsler, 85 AD3d at 1186-1187 ; Matter of Adams v Perryman, 68 AD3d 860, 861 [2009]).

2024The credibility determinations of the 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 Wheeler , 2 NY3d 370, 374 ; People v Prochilo , 41 NY2d 759 , 761; Matter of Cromwell S. , 154 AD3d 857, 858 ).

2016“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 Taylor, 120 AD3d 519, 520 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Wheeler, 2 NY3d 370, 374 [2004]; People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]).

2014In 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]).

2014In 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]).

2018It is well settled that the credibility determinations of a hearing court, which had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses firsthand, are to be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous ( see People v Prochilo , 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Francis , 44 AD3d 788 , 789 [2007]; People v Turner , 53 Misc 3d 130 [A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51368[U] , *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2016]).

2013“The credibility determinations of a hearing court are accorded great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” (People v Condon, 100 AD3d 920, 920 [2012]; see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Francis, 44 AD3d 788, 789 [2007]).

2024"The credibility determinations of a hearing court following a Darden hearing are accorded deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless they are not supported by the record" ( People v Nettles , 186 AD3d 861, 863 ; see People v Kelly , 131 AD3d 484, 485 ).

2022ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5). "'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'" ( People v Kelly , 131 AD3d 484, 485 , quoting People v Hobson , 111 AD3d 958, 959 ).

2023"Where police acting in their law enforcement capacity initiate an encounter with private citizens, the propriety of the encounter must be assessed under the four-tiered analytical framework articulated in People v De Bour ( 40 NY2d 210 )" ( People v Brown , 198 AD3d at 805 ; see People v McIntosh , 96 NY2d 521, 525 ). "[L]evel one permits a police officer to request information from an individual and merely requires that the request be supported by an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality; level two, the common-law right of inquiry, permits a somewhat greater i

2023"Where police acting in their law enforcement capacity initiate an encounter with private citizens, the propriety of the encounter must be assessed under the four-tiered analytical framework articulated in People v De Bour ( 40 NY2d 210 )" ( People v Brown , 198 AD3d at 805 ; see People v McIntosh , 96 NY2d 521, 525 ). "[L]evel one permits a police officer to request information from an individual and merely requires that the request be supported by an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality; level two, the common-law right of inquiry, permits a somewhat greater i

2015“The credibility determinations of a hearing court are accorded great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” (People v Glenn, 53 AD3d 622, 623 [2008]).

2011The 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 Tandle, 71 AD3d 1176, 1178 [2010]; People v Glenn, 53 AD3d 622, 623-624 [2008]; People v Edwards, 29 AD3d 818 [2006]).

2017The credibility determinations of a hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses at the suppression hearing, are entitled to deference on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Wallace, 128 AD3d 866, 866 [2015]; People v Davis, 103 AD3d 810, 811 [2013]). “[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 traffic violation” (People v Davis,

2017The credibility determinations of a hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses at the suppression hearing, are entitled to deference on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Wallace, 128 AD3d 866, 866 [2015]; People v Davis, 103 AD3d 810, 811 [2013]). “[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 traffic violation” (People v Davis,

2011Furthermore, 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 Meyers, 80 AD3d 715 [2011]; People v Blinker, 80 AD3d 619 [2011]; People v Bennett, 57 AD3d 912 [2008]).

2010The credibility determinations of the hearing court will not be disturbed unless they are clearly unsupported by the record or are clearly erroneous (see People v Bennett, 57 AD3d 912 [2008]; People v Timmons, 54 AD3d 883, 885 [2008]; People v Britton, 49 AD3d 893 [2008]; People v Washington, 182 AD2d 791 [1992]).

2017Here, the hearing court properly credited the police officer’s testimony that he observed a vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger make a left turn without signaling, which justified the stop of the vehicle for a traffic infraction (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163; People v Davis, 103 AD3d at 811 ; People v Glover, 84 AD3d 977, 978 [2011]; People v Grant, 83 AD3d at 863 ).

2014The 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 Glover, 84 AD3d 977, 978 [2011]; People v Tandle, 71 AD3d 1176, 1178 [2010]).

2017The 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 Golden, 149 AD3d 777 [2017]; People v Pleasant, 146 AD3d 985, 987 [2017]; People v James, 19 AD3d 617, 618 [2005]).

2017Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the police officers’ testimony that they saw the handle of a black gun sticking out of the pocket of his white jacket does not appear to have been tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see People v Johnson, 46 AD3d 838, 839 [2007]; People v James, 19 AD3d at 618 ; People v Grajales, 187 AD2d 631, 632 [1992]).

2012While the authority of the Appellate Division in custody matters is as broad as that of the hearing court, deference should be accorded to the credibility determinations of the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses, and the hearing court’s custody determination should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Nava v Kinsler, 85 AD3d at 1186-1187 ; Matter of Adams v Perryman, 68 AD3d 860, 861 [2009]).

2012While the authority of the Appellate Division in custody matters is as broad as that of the hearing court, deference should be accorded to the credibility determinations of the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses, and the hearing court’s custody determination should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Nava v Kinsler, 85 AD3d at 1186-1187 ; Matter of Adams v Perryman, 68 AD3d 860, 861 [2009]).