PEOPLE v. RUFFIN (2008)

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Jacon, J.), rendered August 14, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

After police received a report of the threatened use of a gun at a local bar, police pulled over defendant, who was driving a vehicle matching the subject description.   During the investigation, an officer shined a light in the windshield of defendant's vehicle and spotted a gun grip protruding from under the driver's seat.   The officer retrieved the gun and defendant subsequently admitted that it was his.   After County Court denied defendant's request to suppress both the gun and his statements, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and was sentenced to a prison term of five years, followed by five years of postrelease supervision.   Defendant now appeals.

Initially, we reject defendant's contention that County Court improperly credited the testimony of the officer who discovered the gun, inasmuch as credibility determinations made by the court at the suppression hearing should be accorded deference and the record amply supports the court's determination (see People v. Langenbach, 38 A.D.3d 1105, 1105, 833 N.Y.S.2d 265 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 866, 840 N.Y.S.2d 896, 872 N.E.2d 1202 [2007];  People v. Craft, 36 A.D.3d 1145, 1148, 827 N.Y.S.2d 376 [2007], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 945, 836 N.Y.S.2d 555, 868 N.E.2d 238 [2007] ).

Likewise, we find unpersuasive defendant's contention that County Court erred in denying defendant's request to keep the suppression hearing open for additional evidence.   The decision of whether to grant an adjournment is generally committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion (see People v. Mao-Sheng Lin, 50 A.D.3d 1251, 1253, 855 N.Y.S.2d 729 [2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 961, 863 N.Y.S.2d 145, 893 N.E.2d 451 [2008];  People v. Beekman, 193 A.D.2d 842, 843-844, 597 N.Y.S.2d 519 [1993], lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 713, 602 N.Y.S.2d 810, 622 N.E.2d 311 [1993] ).   Here, defendant contends that the court abused its discretion by refusing an adjournment to secure the testimony of Jamel Bell, who was present when defendant was apprehended.   Inasmuch as defendant had taken no steps to secure Bell's attendance prior to his recent release on bail on unrelated charges, his attorney did not know his whereabouts, and defendant had unsuccessfully checked three addresses and had information that Bell might have fled to New York City, we find that County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the requested adjournment (see People v. Foy, 32 N.Y.2d 473, 478, 346 N.Y.S.2d 245, 299 N.E.2d 664 [1973];  People v. Soulia, 263 A.D.2d 869, 873, 695 N.Y.S.2d 179 [1999], lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 829, 702 N.Y.S.2d 600, 724 N.E.2d 392 [1999];  see also People v. Iglesias, 184 A.D.2d 432, 432, 587 N.Y.S.2d 163 [1992], lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 930, 589 N.Y.S.2d 858, 603 N.E.2d 963 [1992] ).   Additionally, we do not find that the court erred in denying an adjournment for defendant to supply additional evidence, inasmuch as one adjournment had already been granted, and defendant had more than adequate time to prepare for the suppression hearing (see People v. Mao-Sheng Lin, 50 A.D.3d at 1253, 855 N.Y.S.2d 729;  see also People v. Brown, 305 A.D.2d 1068, 1069-1070, 759 N.Y.S.2d 830 [2003], lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 579, 764 N.Y.S.2d 389, 796 N.E.2d 481 [2003] ).

We have examined defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

KANE, J.

MERCURE, J.P., SPAIN, ROSE and STEIN, JJ., concur.