advantage hearing in New York

1993Although the choice of awarding custody to either of these parties is far from clear, there is ample basis in the record to support the resolution of the conflicting testimony in favor of petitioner, particularly in that Family Court had the advantage of hearing the witnesses and weighing the credibility of their testimony (see, Northern Westchester Professional Park Assocs. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 ; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172 ; Matter of Amy J. v Brian K., 161 AD2d 1022, 1023 ; Matter of Schwartz v Schwartz, 144 AD2d 857, 859 ).

1993We cannot agree that petitioner’s version of the events should be accepted inasmuch as there is ample basis in the record to support the resolution of conflicting testimony against her, particularly because Family Court had the advantage of hearing the witnesses and weighing the credibility of their testimony (see, Northern Westchester Professional Park Assocs. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 ; Matter of Amy J. v Brian K., 161 AD2d 1022, 1023 ; Matter of Schwartz v Schwartz, 144 AD2d 857, 859 , lv denied 74 NY2d 604 ).

1993Although the choice of awarding custody to either of these parties is far from clear, there is ample basis in the record to support the resolution of the conflicting testimony in favor of petitioner, particularly in that Family Court had the advantage of hearing the witnesses and weighing the credibility of their testimony (see, Northern Westchester Professional Park Assocs. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 ; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172 ; Matter of Amy J. v Brian K., 161 AD2d 1022, 1023 ; Matter of Schwartz v Schwartz, 144 AD2d 857, 859 ).

1993We cannot agree that petitioner’s version of the events should be accepted inasmuch as there is ample basis in the record to support the resolution of conflicting testimony against her, particularly because Family Court had the advantage of hearing the witnesses and weighing the credibility of their testimony (see, Northern Westchester Professional Park Assocs. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 ; Matter of Amy J. v Brian K., 161 AD2d 1022, 1023 ; Matter of Schwartz v Schwartz, 144 AD2d 857, 859 , lv denied 74 NY2d 604 ).

1993Although the choice of awarding custody to either of these parties is far from clear, there is ample basis in the record to support the resolution of the conflicting testimony in favor of petitioner, particularly in that Family Court had the advantage of hearing the witnesses and weighing the credibility of their testimony (see, Northern Westchester Professional Park Assocs. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 ; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172 ; Matter of Amy J. v Brian K., 161 AD2d 1022, 1023 ; Matter of Schwartz v Schwartz, 144 AD2d 857, 859 ).

1993We cannot agree that petitioner’s version of the events should be accepted inasmuch as there is ample basis in the record to support the resolution of conflicting testimony against her, particularly because Family Court had the advantage of hearing the witnesses and weighing the credibility of their testimony (see, Northern Westchester Professional Park Assocs. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 ; Matter of Amy J. v Brian K., 161 AD2d 1022, 1023 ; Matter of Schwartz v Schwartz, 144 AD2d 857, 859 , lv denied 74 NY2d 604 ).

2012A hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to deference, as that court had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses (see Matter of Finn v Sherwood, 87 AD3d at 1045; Matter of Harris v Duran, 76 AD3d at 659; Matter of Drace v Sayegh, 43 AD3d at 482 ; Matter of Morini v Scannapieco, 286 AD2d 459 [2001]; Matter of Walkes v Farrakhan, 286 AD2d 464 [2001]; McGuirk v Mugs Pub, 250 AD2d 824 [1998]).

2012A hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to deference, as that court had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses (see Matter of Finn v Sherwood, 87 AD3d at 1045; Matter of Harris v Duran, 76 AD3d at 659; Matter of Drace v Sayegh, 43 AD3d at 482 ; Matter of Morini v Scannapieco, 286 AD2d 459 [2001]; Matter of Walkes v Farrakhan, 286 AD2d 464 [2001]; McGuirk v Mugs Pub, 250 AD2d 824 [1998]).

2007The determination of the hearing court, which had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses, is to be accorded great weight on appeal (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Jade, 286 AD2d 688, 689 [2001]; People v Rosario, 245 AD2d 470 [1997]).

2007The determination of the hearing court, which had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses first hand, is to be accorded great weight on appeal (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Jade, 286 AD2d 688, 689 [2001]; People v Rosario, 245 AD2d 470 [1997]).

1997The determination of the hearing court, which had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses first hand, is to be accorded much weight on appeal (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761), and it should be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous (see, People v Pegues, 208 AD2d 773 ).

1995It is axiomatic that, as to the credibility of witnesses, the determination of the hearing court, which had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses first hand, is to be given great weight on appeal (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 ) and should be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous (see, People v Belli, 208 AD2d 640 ; People v Pegues, 208 AD2d 773 ; People v Catala, 198 AD2d 293, 294 ).

1995It is axiomatic that, as to the credibility of witnesses, the determination of the hearing court, which had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses firsthand, is to be given great weight on appeal (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 ) and should be upheld unless it is clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Belli, 208 AD2d 640 ; People v Pegues, 208 AD2d 773 ; People v Catalla, 198 AD2d 293, 294 ).

1995It is axiomatic that, as to the credibility of witnesses, the determination of the hearing court, which had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses first hand, is to be given great weight on appeal (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 ) and should be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous (see, People v Belli, 208 AD2d 640 ; People v Pegues, 208 AD2d 773 ; People v Catala, 198 AD2d 293, 294 ).

1993Although the choice of awarding custody to either of these parties is far from clear, there is ample basis in the record to support the resolution of the conflicting testimony in favor of petitioner, particularly in that Family Court had the advantage of hearing the witnesses and weighing the credibility of their testimony (see, Northern Westchester Professional Park Assocs. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 ; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172 ; Matter of Amy J. v Brian K., 161 AD2d 1022, 1023 ; Matter of Schwartz v Schwartz, 144 AD2d 857, 859 ).

1992There is ample basis in the record to support the resolution of conflicting testimony against her, particularly since Family Court had the advantage of hearing the witnesses and weighing the credibility of their testimony (see, Northern Westchester Professional Park Assocs. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 ; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172 ; Matter of Amy J. v Brian K., 161 AD2d 1022, 1023 ; Matter of Schwartz v Schwartz, 144 AD2d 857, 859 ).

2018Under the circumstances presented ( see People v Bigelow , 66 NY2d at 423 ), we find that the Justice Court properly concluded that defendant's vehicle had been lawfully stopped.

2007Under all of the facts and circumstances of this case (see People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d at 423 ), the police possessed probable cause to arrest the defendant (see People v Ramirez Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 113-114 [1996]; People v McPherson, 300 AD2d 194 [2002]; People v Turner, 295 AD2d 545 [2002]), and the hearing court properly denied those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress the physical evidence obtained and statements made to police officers after his arrest (see People v Nealy, 32 AD3d 400, 401 [2006]; People v Vasquez, 291 AD2d 465 [2002]).

2012A hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to deference, as that court had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses (see Matter of Finn v Sherwood, 87 AD3d at 1045; Matter of Harris v Duran, 76 AD3d at 659; Matter of Drace v Sayegh, 43 AD3d at 482 ; Matter of Morini v Scannapieco, 286 AD2d 459 [2001]; Matter of Walkes v Farrakhan, 286 AD2d 464 [2001]; McGuirk v Mugs Pub, 250 AD2d 824 [1998]).

2012A hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to deference, as that court had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses (see Matter of Finn v Sherwood, 87 AD3d at 1045; Matter of Harris v Duran, 76 AD3d at 659; Matter of Drace v Sayegh, 43 AD3d at 482 ; Matter of Morini v Scannapieco, 286 AD2d 459 [2001]; Matter of Walkes v Farrakhan, 286 AD2d 464 [2001]; McGuirk v Mugs Pub, 250 AD2d 824 [1998]).

2002The trial court has the advantage of hearing the witnesses and weighing their credibility (see Matter of Vernon Mc. v Brenda N., 196 AD2d 823, 823 ) and “its decision will not be set aside unless it clearly lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Scalia v Scalia, supra at 781; see Matter of Storch v Storch, 282 AD2d 845, 846 , lv denied 96 NY2d 718 ; Matter of Lukaszewicz v Lukaszewicz, 256 AD2d 1031, 1033 ).

1995The trial court has the advantage of hearing the witnesses and weighing their credibility (see, Matter of Vernon Mc. v Brenda N., 196 AD2d 823 ) and its decision will not be set aside unless it clearly lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record.

2001As “Family Court’s determination is entitled to great deference * * * as it had the advantage of hearing the witnesses and weighing their credibility and will only be set aside if it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Nicotera v Nicotera, 222 AD2d 892, 893 ), we find no basis upon which we would disturb the determination rendered.

1996Further, "Family Court’s determination is entitled to great deference from this Court as it had the advantage of hearing the witnesses and weighing their credibility and will only be set aside if it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Nicotera v Nicotera, 222 AD2d 892, 893 ).

1998“It is well settled that, ‘[t]he determination of a hearing court, which has the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses, should be upheld unless it is clearly unsupported by the evidence in the record’ ” (People v Evans, 232 AD2d 424 , quoting People v Parchment, 218 AD2d 752, 753 ).

1996It is well settled that, "[t]he determination of a hearing court, which has the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses, should be upheld unless it is clearly unsupported by the evidence in the record” (People v Parchment, 218 AD2d 752, 753 ; see also, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 ).

1995We find that there is nothing in the record which supports the defendant’s contention that the testimony of the police officers was incredible or patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see, People v Stanley, 191 AD2d 732 ; cf., People v Lewis, 195 AD2d 523, 524 ; People v Lebron, 184 AD2d 784, 787 ; Matter of Carl W, 174 AD2d 678, 679-680 ; People v Miret-Gonzalez, 159 AD2d 647, 649 ; People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 ).

1995We find that there is nothing in the record which supports the defendant’s contention that the testimony of the police officers was patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see, People v Stanley, 191 AD2d 732 ; cf., People v Lewis, 195 AD2d 523, 524 ; People v Lebron, 184 AD2d 784, 787 ; Matter of Carl W., 174 AD2d 678, 679-680 ; People v Miret-Gonzalez, 159 AD2d 647, 649 ; People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 ).

1995We find that there is nothing in the record which supports the defendant’s contention that the testimony of the police officers was incredible or patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see, People v Stanley, 191 AD2d 732 ; cf., People v Lewis, 195 AD2d 523, 524 ; People v Lebron, 184 AD2d 784, 787 ; Matter of Carl W, 174 AD2d 678, 679-680 ; People v Miret-Gonzalez, 159 AD2d 647, 649 ; People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 ).

1995We find that there is nothing in the record which supports the defendant’s contention that the testimony of the police officers was patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see, People v Stanley, 191 AD2d 732 ; cf., People v Lewis, 195 AD2d 523, 524 ; People v Lebron, 184 AD2d 784, 787 ; Matter of Carl W., 174 AD2d 678, 679-680 ; People v Miret-Gonzalez, 159 AD2d 647, 649 ; People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 ).

1995We find that there is nothing in the record which supports the defendant’s contention that the testimony of the police officers was incredible or patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see, People v Stanley, 191 AD2d 732 ; cf., People v Lewis, 195 AD2d 523, 524 ; People v Lebron, 184 AD2d 784, 787 ; Matter of Carl W, 174 AD2d 678, 679-680 ; People v Miret-Gonzalez, 159 AD2d 647, 649 ; People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 ).

1995We find that there is nothing in the record which supports the defendant’s contention that the testimony of the police officers was patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see, People v Stanley, 191 AD2d 732 ; cf., People v Lewis, 195 AD2d 523, 524 ; People v Lebron, 184 AD2d 784, 787 ; Matter of Carl W., 174 AD2d 678, 679-680 ; People v Miret-Gonzalez, 159 AD2d 647, 649 ; People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 ).

1995We find that there is nothing in the record which supports the defendant’s contention that the testimony of the police officers was incredible or patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see, People v Stanley, 191 AD2d 732 ; cf., People v Lewis, 195 AD2d 523, 524 ; People v Lebron, 184 AD2d 784, 787 ; Matter of Carl W, 174 AD2d 678, 679-680 ; People v Miret-Gonzalez, 159 AD2d 647, 649 ; People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 ).

1995We find that there is nothing in the record which supports the defendant’s contention that the testimony of the police officers was patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see, People v Stanley, 191 AD2d 732 ; cf., People v Lewis, 195 AD2d 523, 524 ; People v Lebron, 184 AD2d 784, 787 ; Matter of Carl W., 174 AD2d 678, 679-680 ; People v Miret-Gonzalez, 159 AD2d 647, 649 ; People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 ).

1995It is axiomatic that, as to the credibility of witnesses, the determination of the hearing court, which had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses firsthand, is to be given great weight on appeal (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 ) and should be upheld unless it is clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Belli, 208 AD2d 640 ; People v Pegues, 208 AD2d 773 ; People v Catalla, 198 AD2d 293, 294 ).

1995It is axiomatic that, as to the credibility of witnesses, the determination of the hearing court, which had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses first hand, is to be given great weight on appeal (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 ) and should be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous (see, People v Belli, 208 AD2d 640 ; People v Pegues, 208 AD2d 773 ; People v Catala, 198 AD2d 293, 294 ).