Hyperlawhypertext legal database People v. Souris 46 A.D.3d 711

← Cases

People v. Souris

46 A.D.3d 711 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2007-12-11 English

Contents

Majority

p. 711
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Panagiotis Souris, Also Known as Peter Souris, Appellant.
[846 NYS2d 587]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Adler, J.), rendered December 6, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and failure to wear a safety belt in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-c (3), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Smith, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

p. 712
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 Umadat, 29 AD3d 830 [2006]; People v Cameron, 6 AD3d 546 [2004]; People v Jakins, 277 AD2d 328 [2000]). The record supports the hearing court’s determination to credit the testimony of a state trooper that he was able to observe that the defendant was not wearing a safety belt in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-c (3) (see People v Umadat, 29 AD3d 830 [2006]; People v James, 19 AD3d 617 , 618 [2005]). This observation, as distinguished from mere pretext (see People v David, 223 AD2d 551 [1996]; People v Smith, 181 AD2d 802 , 803 [1992]), justified the trooper’s stop of the vehicle (see Whren v United States, 517 US 806 , 810 [1996]; People v Robinson, 97 NY2d 341 , 349 [2001]; People v Robinson, 38 AD3d 572 , 573 [2007]). Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cases cited