Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Steven HARDIE, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered July 14, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
To the extent that the defendant's hearing testimony regarding a butane lighter and the charring of a marijuana cigarette raised any inconsistencies with the testimony of the arresting officer, they merely presented questions of credibility for the hearing court to resolve. The credibility determinations of the hearing court are to be accorded great weight, given the court's unique perspective of having seen and heard the witnesses (see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380; People v. Wheeler, 2 N.Y.3d 370, 374, 779 N.Y.S.2d 164, 811 N.E.2d 531; People v. Cruz, 59 A.D.3d 457, 872 N.Y.S.2d 519, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 852, 881 N.Y.S.2d 664, 909 N.E.2d 587). The credibility determinations of the hearing court will not be disturbed where there is support in the record for such determinations and there is no showing that they were clearly erroneous (see People v. Bennett, 57 A.D.3d 912, 870 N.Y.S.2d 421; People v. Timmons, 54 A.D.3d 883, 864 N.Y.S.2d 111; People v. Britton, 49 A.D.3d 893, 894, 853 N.Y.S.2d 897; People v. Washington, 182 A.D.2d 791, 582 N.Y.S.2d 740). Here, there is clear support in the record for crediting the officer's testimony. Accordingly, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence was properly denied.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: July 14, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)