record supports hearing in New York

2019The record supports the hearing court's finding that the lineup at which defendant was identified was not unduly suggestive ( see People v Chipp , 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).

2017Based on our review of the photograph of the lineup viewed by the victim of one of the robberies, we find that the record supports the hearing court’s conclusion that the lineup was not unduly suggestive (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).

2013The record supports the hearing court’s determination that, under the circumstances of this case, the police had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain the defendant (see People v Hicks, 78 AD3d 1075, 1075-1076 [2010]; People v Mais, 71 AD3d 1163 [2010]; see also People v Williams, 73 AD3d 1097, 1099 [2010]).

2013The record supports the hearing court’s determination that, under the circumstances of this case, the police had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain the defendant (see People v Hicks, 78 AD3d 1075, 1075-1076 [2010]; People v Mais, 71 AD3d 1163 [2010]; see also People v Williams, 73 AD3d 1097, 1099 [2010]).

2012Regardless of the suggestiveness of the photo or lineup identifications, the record supports the hearing court’s finding that the victim’s in-court identification of defendant was based on an independent source (see Neil v Biggers, 409 US 188, 199-200 [1972]; People v Williams, 222 AD2d 149 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 1072 [1996]).

2007The record supports the hearing court’s independent source findings with respect to each of the witnesses at issue (see Neil v Biggers, 409 US 188, 199-200 [1972]; People v Williams, 222 AD2d 149 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 1072 [1996]).

2013Moreover, the record supports the hearing court’s finding that the defendant understood the import of the Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) given to him (see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263, 264 [1999]; People v Alexandre, 215 AD2d 488 [1995]).

2013Moreover, the record supports the hearing court’s finding that the defendant understood the import of the Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) given to him (see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263, 264 [1999]; People v Alexandre, 215 AD2d 488 [1995]).

2013Moreover, the record supports the hearing court’s finding that the defendant understood the import of the Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) given to him (see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263, 264 [1999]; People v Alexandre, 215 AD2d 488 [1995]).

2013Moreover, the record supports the hearing court’s finding that the defendant understood the import of the Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) given to him (see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263, 264 [1999]; People v Alexandre, 215 AD2d 488 [1995]).

2008Here, the record supports the hearing court’s determination to credit the testimony of the police witnesses, which established that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search (see People v Gonzalez, 39 NY2d 122 [1976]; People v Wynter, 48 AD3d 492 [2008]).

2008The record supports the hearing court’s determination to credit the testimony of the police witness, which established that the defendant’s mother voluntarily consented to the search of the defendant’s home that he shared with her (see People v Gonzalez, 39 NY2d 122 [1976]) and that the lineup identification procedure was not improperly conducted.

2020Here, the record supports the hearing court's determination to credit a police officer's testimony that he observed the vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger run a stop sign, and that he radioed that information to a fellow officer ( see People v Rosario , 78 NY2d 583, 588 ) who then stopped the vehicle ( see People v Davis , 103 AD3d at 811 ).

2014Here, the record supports the hearing court’s determination to credit a police officer’s testimony that he observed that the defendant’s vehicle had a defective or inoperable brake light, which justified the stop of the vehicle for a traffic infraction (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [40] [b]; People v Davis, 103 AD3d 810, 811 [2013]; People v Glover, 84 AD3d at 978 ).

2019The record supports the hearing court's finding that the lineup at which defendant was identified was not unduly suggestive ( see People v Chipp , 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).

2017Based on our review of the photograph of the lineup viewed by the victim of one of the robberies, we find that the record supports the hearing court’s conclusion that the lineup was not unduly suggestive (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).

2012The record supports the hearing court’s finding that when defendant made his pre-Miranda statements, a reasonable innocent person in defendant’s position would not have thought he was in custody (see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; see also Stansbury v California, 511 US 318 [1994]).

2012The record supports the hearing court’s finding that when defendant made his pre-Miranda statements, a reasonable innocent person in defendant’s position would not have thought he was in custody (see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; see also Stansbury v California, 511 US 318 [1994]).

2014Here, the record supports the hearing court’s determination to credit a police officer’s testimony that he observed that the defendant’s vehicle had a defective or inoperable brake light, which justified the stop of the vehicle for a traffic infraction (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [40] [b]; People v Davis, 103 AD3d 810, 811 [2013]; People v Glover, 84 AD3d at 978 ).

2013Here, the record supports the hearing court’s determination to credit a police officer’s testimony that he observed a vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger make two right turns without signaling, which justified the stop of the vehicle for a traffic infraction (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [a]; People v Glover, 84 AD3d 977 [2011]).

2013Moreover, as this Court previously concluded on the appeal of the codefendant (see People v Julien, 100 AD3d at 927 ), the Supreme Court properly admitted testimony regarding the showup identification made by the victim near the scene of the crime (see People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 543 [1991]; People v Hicks, 78 AD3d 1075 [2010]; People v Grassia, 195 AD2d 607 [1993]).

1993The record supports the hearing court’s findings that the prompt, on the scene showup was reasonable in the circumstances (People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 543 ), that the police procedures in connection with the photo array and lineup were not unduly suggestive (see, People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296 , cert denied 459 US 847 ), and that an independent source existed for an in-court identification by one of the complainants (supra).

2011Here, the record supports the hearing court’s determination to credit a police officer’s testimony that he observed the defendant make a right turn without signaling, which justified the initial stop of his vehicle for a traffic infraction (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [a]; People v Edwards, 14 NY3d 741, 742 [2010]; People v Leiva, 33 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2006]; People v Parris, 26 AD3d 393, 394 [2006]).

2010The record supports the hearing court’s finding that the Troopers lawfully stopped the defendant’s car (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 [a]; § 1131; People v Parris, 26 AD3d 393 [2006]).

2013Moreover, the record supports the hearing court’s finding that the defendant understood the import of the Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) given to him (see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263, 264 [1999]; People v Alexandre, 215 AD2d 488 [1995]).

2013Moreover, the record supports the hearing court’s finding that the defendant understood the import of the Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) given to him (see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263, 264 [1999]; People v Alexandre, 215 AD2d 488 [1995]).

2012The record supports the hearing court’s finding that when defendant made his pre-Miranda statements, a reasonable innocent person in defendant’s position would not have thought he was in custody (see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; see also Stansbury v California, 511 US 318 [1994]).

2012The record supports the hearing court’s finding that when defendant made his pre-Miranda statements, a reasonable innocent person in defendant’s position would not have thought he was in custody (see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; see also Stansbury v California, 511 US 318 [1994]).

2009The record supports the hearing court’s determination that the defendant’s statement, taken after he was placed in custody but before Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) were given, was made voluntarily and spontaneously and was not the product of police interrogation or its functional equivalent (see People v Lynes, 49 NY2d 286, 294 [1980]; People v Nevone, 258 AD2d 944 [1999]; People v Harrison, 251 AD2d 681 [1998]; People v Zanders, 241 AD2d 531 [1997]).

1992The record supports the hearing court’s finding that the defendant spoke with genuine spontaneity and not as a result of police conduct which reasonably should have been anticipated to evoke a declaration from the defendant (see, People v Lynes, 49 NY2d 286 ; People v Warden, 170 AD2d 469 ).

1994Furthermore, the record supports the hearing court’s conclusion that the pretrial lineup was not suggestive in any way (see, People v Adams, 53 NY2d 241, 249 ; People v Gairy, 116 AD2d 733 ; People v Hazelton, 75 AD2d 694 ).

1994In any event, the record supports the hearing court’s determination of an independent source, and accordingly, the complaining witness’s in-court identification, of the defendant was properly admitted into evidence (see, People v Adams, supra, at 248; People v Smalls, 112 AD2d 173 ).

2024Although defendant was in custody and had not yet received Miranda warnings, the record supports the hearing court's finding that his statement, "I might have bumped" the victim, was spontaneous and not the product of custodial interrogation ( see People v Rivers , 56 NY2d 476 [1982]; People v Rastaldo , 132 AD3d 455 [2015], lvs denied 26 NY3d 1111, 1149 [2017]).

2024Although defendant was in custody and had not yet received Miranda warnings, the record supports the hearing court's finding that his statement, "I might have bumped" the victim, was spontaneous and not the product of custodial interrogation ( see People v Rivers , 56 NY2d 476 [1982]; People v Rastaldo , 132 AD3d 455 [2015], lvs denied 26 NY3d 1111 , 1149 [2017]).

1997Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record supports the hearing court’s determination that his statements were neither made while in custody (see, People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 , cert denied 400 US 851 ; People v Sullivan, 224 AD2d 460 ; People v Nolcox, 190 AD2d 824 ; People v Smedman, 184 AD2d 601 ), nor involuntarily (see, People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1 ; People v Louis, 239 AD2d 435 ; People v Ingram, 208 AD2d 561 ; People v Hassell, 180 AD2d 819 ).

1995The hearing court also properly found that the police advice to the consenter that they were looking for an individual whose name had been used by defendant was not so unfair as to undermine the consent (People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1, 11 ).