record to disturb hearing in New York

2019Moreover, in exercising our factual review power, we discern no basis in the record to disturb the hearing court's credibility determination ( see People v Granger , 122 AD3d 940, 941 ).

2015Moreover, in exercising our factual review power, we find no basis in the record to disturb the hearing court’s credibility determination (see People v Granger, 122 AD3d 940 [2014]).

2014Here, the hearing court credited the testimony of the police witnesses that the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]), and that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived those rights, including the right to counsel, and there is no basis in the record to disturb the hearing court’s credibility determinations (see People v Louis, 99 AD3d at 726 ).

2014Here, the hearing court credited the testimony of the police witnesses that the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]), and that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived those rights, including the right to counsel, and there is no basis in the record to disturb the hearing court’s credibility determinations (see People v Louis, 99 AD3d at 726 ).

2016The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

2014The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

2014Here, the hearing court credited the testimony of the police witnesses that the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]), and that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived those rights, including the right to counsel, and there is no basis in the record to disturb the hearing court’s credibility determinations (see People v Louis, 99 AD3d at 726 ).

2014Here, the hearing court credited the testimony of the police witnesses that the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]), and that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived those rights, including the right to counsel, and there is no basis in the record to disturb the hearing court’s credibility determinations (see People v Louis, 99 AD3d at 726 ).

2019Moreover, as the hearing court found, the testimony of Officer Fasano and of Police Officer Gregory Drobot, who arrested the defendant, that the defendant smelled of alcohol, had glassy and bloodshot eyes, and failed all three of the field sobriety tests administered, was sufficient to provide probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving while intoxicated ( see People v Johnson , 140 AD3d 978 ; People v Farnsworth , 134 AD3d 1302 ; People v Depinto , 124 AD3d 677 ; People v Vargas , 123 AD3d 1149 ; People v Tieman , 112 AD3d 975 ).

2019Moreover, as the hearing court found, the testimony of Officer Fasano and of Police Officer Gregory Drobot, who arrested the defendant, that the defendant smelled of alcohol, had glassy and bloodshot eyes, and failed all three of the field sobriety tests administered, was sufficient to provide probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving while intoxicated ( see People v Johnson , 140 AD3d 978 ; People v Farnsworth , 134 AD3d 1302 ; People v Depinto , 124 AD3d 677 ; People v Vargas , 123 AD3d 1149 ; People v Tieman , 112 AD3d 975 ).

2019Moreover, as the hearing court found, the testimony of Officer Fasano and of Police Officer Gregory Drobot, who arrested the defendant, that the defendant smelled of alcohol, had glassy and bloodshot eyes, and failed all three of the field sobriety tests administered, was sufficient to provide probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving while intoxicated ( see People v Johnson , 140 AD3d 978 ; People v Farnsworth , 134 AD3d 1302 ; People v Depinto , 124 AD3d 677 ; People v Vargas , 123 AD3d 1149 ; People v Tieman , 112 AD3d 975 ).

2019Moreover, as the hearing court found, the testimony of Officer Fasano and of Police Officer Gregory Drobot, who arrested the defendant, that the defendant smelled of alcohol, had glassy and bloodshot eyes, and failed all three of the field sobriety tests administered, was sufficient to provide probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving while intoxicated ( see People v Johnson , 140 AD3d 978 ; People v Farnsworth , 134 AD3d 1302 ; People v Depinto , 124 AD3d 677 ; People v Vargas , 123 AD3d 1149 ; People v Tieman , 112 AD3d 975 ).

2019Moreover, as the hearing court found, the testimony of Officer Fasano and of Police Officer Gregory Drobot, who arrested the defendant, that the defendant smelled of alcohol, had glassy and bloodshot eyes, and failed all three of the field sobriety tests administered, was sufficient to provide probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving while intoxicated ( see People v Johnson , 140 AD3d 978 ; People v Farnsworth , 134 AD3d 1302 ; People v Depinto , 124 AD3d 677 ; People v Vargas , 123 AD3d 1149 ; People v Tieman , 112 AD3d 975 ).

2019Contrary to the defendant's contention, there is no basis in the record to disturb the hearing court's determination that Officer Fasano's testimony was credible ( see People v Chambers , 18 AD3d 571 ).

2018Although there were inconsistencies in the officer's testimony, these inconsistencies did not render the officer's testimony incredible ( see People v Granger , 122 AD3d 940 ; Matter of Stephen O ., 47 AD3d 719 , 719; People v Gamble , 267 AD2d 400 ; compare People v Glenn , 53 AD3d 622, 624-625 , with People v Lebron , 184 AD2d 784, 784-785 ).

2018Although there were inconsistencies in the officer's testimony, these inconsistencies did not render the officer's testimony incredible ( see People v Granger , 122 AD3d 940 ; Matter of Stephen O ., 47 AD3d 719 , 719; People v Gamble , 267 AD2d 400 ; compare People v Glenn , 53 AD3d 622, 624-625 , with People v Lebron , 184 AD2d 784, 784-785 ).

2016Although the defendant testified on his own behalf to the contrary, the conflicting testimony adduced at the suppression hearing presented a credibility question for the hearing court (see People v Grigoroff, 131 AD3d 541, 543 [2015]), and there is no basis in the record to disturb the hearing court’s determination to credit the police testimony (see People v Duggins, 1 AD3d 450 [2003], affd 3 NY3d 522 [2004]).

2015Any inconsistencies in the officers' testimony did not establish that the testimony was tailored to nullify constitutional objections and did not render the testimony incredible or unreliable ( see People v Blake , 123 AD3d 838 ; People v Hopkins , 244 AD2d 357 ; People v Gonzalez , 224 AD2d 322 ; People v Thomas , 175 AD2d 852 ).

2015Any inconsistencies in the officers’ testimony did not establish that the testimony was tailored to nullify constitutional objections and did not render the testimony incredible or unreliable (see People v Blake, 123 AD3d 838 [2014]; People v Hopkins, 244 AD2d 357 [1997]; People v Gonzalez, 224 AD2d 322 [1996]; People v Thomas, 175 AD2d 852 [1991]).

2015Any inconsistencies in the officers' testimony did not establish that the testimony was tailored to nullify constitutional objections and did not render the testimony incredible or unreliable ( see People v Blake , 123 AD3d 838 ; People v Hopkins , 244 AD2d 357 ; People v Gonzalez , 224 AD2d 322 ; People v Thomas , 175 AD2d 852 ).

2015Any inconsistencies in the officers’ testimony did not establish that the testimony was tailored to nullify constitutional objections and did not render the testimony incredible or unreliable (see People v Blake, 123 AD3d 838 [2014]; People v Hopkins, 244 AD2d 357 [1997]; People v Gonzalez, 224 AD2d 322 [1996]; People v Thomas, 175 AD2d 852 [1991]).

2015Any inconsistencies in the officers' testimony did not establish that the testimony was tailored to nullify constitutional objections and did not render the testimony incredible or unreliable ( see People v Blake , 123 AD3d 838 ; People v Hopkins , 244 AD2d 357 ; People v Gonzalez , 224 AD2d 322 ; People v Thomas , 175 AD2d 852 ).

2015Any inconsistencies in the officers’ testimony did not establish that the testimony was tailored to nullify constitutional objections and did not render the testimony incredible or unreliable (see People v Blake, 123 AD3d 838 [2014]; People v Hopkins, 244 AD2d 357 [1997]; People v Gonzalez, 224 AD2d 322 [1996]; People v Thomas, 175 AD2d 852 [1991]).

2015Any inconsistencies in the officers' testimony did not establish that the testimony was tailored to nullify constitutional objections and did not render the testimony incredible or unreliable ( see People v Blake , 123 AD3d 838 ; People v Hopkins , 244 AD2d 357 ; People v Gonzalez , 224 AD2d 322 ; People v Thomas , 175 AD2d 852 ).

2015Any inconsistencies in the officers’ testimony did not establish that the testimony was tailored to nullify constitutional objections and did not render the testimony incredible or unreliable (see People v Blake, 123 AD3d 838 [2014]; People v Hopkins, 244 AD2d 357 [1997]; People v Gonzalez, 224 AD2d 322 [1996]; People v Thomas, 175 AD2d 852 [1991]).

2015Furthermore, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record of the suppression hearing does not show, as a matter of *544 law, that the duration and nature of the police interrogation completely undermined his constitutional right to remain silent (cf. People v Thomas, 22 NY3d at 642 ).

2011The hearing testimony established that, under all the circumstances of this case, the officers had reasonable suspicion to pursue the defendant (see People v Pines, 99 NY2d 525, 526-527 [2002]; People v Sierra, 83 NY2d 928, 929-930 [1994]; Matter of George G., 73 AD3d 624 [2010]; People v Woonbong Chang, 275 AD2d 423 [2000]; People v Gladden, 267 AD2d 400 [1999]).

2011The hearing testimony established that, under all the circumstances of this case, the officers had reasonable suspicion to pursue the defendant (see People v Pines, 99 NY2d 525, 526-527 [2002]; People v Sierra, 83 NY2d 928, 929-930 [1994]; Matter of George G., 73 AD3d 624 [2010]; People v Woonbong Chang, 275 AD2d 423 [2000]; People v Gladden, 267 AD2d 400 [1999]).

2011The hearing testimony established that, under all the circumstances of this case, the officers had reasonable suspicion to pursue the defendant (see People v Pines, 99 NY2d 525, 526-527 [2002]; People v Sierra, 83 NY2d 928, 929-930 [1994]; Matter of George G., 73 AD3d 624 [2010]; People v Woonbong Chang, 275 AD2d 423 [2000]; People v Gladden, 267 AD2d 400 [1999]).

2007There is no basis in the record to disturb the hearing court’s resolution, in reference to indictment No. 04-00144, of the question of Officer Lawson’s credibility as to his observations of the defendant’s actions in the gas station/convenience store (cf. People v Baptiste, 192 AD2d 714 [1993]; People v Burke, 146 AD2d 706 [1989]), or the determination that those observations provided probable cause for the arrest of the defendant and the search incident to that arrest.