PEOPLE v. KAJA (2020)

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was charged in an information with aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [1] [a]). At a combined Dunaway/Huntley/Ingle hearing, the arresting officer testified that he had observed defendant driving simultaneously in two marked northbound lanes of traffic for approximately 50 to 100 feet. After the officer pulled defendant over, defendant was unable to provide a driver's license and informed the arresting officer that his license had been suspended. Based on pedigree information obtained from defendant's passport, the officer ran a search of the Department of Motor Vehicle records and learned that defendant's driving privileges had been suspended, and placed defendant under arrest. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Criminal Court (Raymond Rodriguez, J.) denied defendant's motion to suppress defendant's statement and evidence that his license had been suspended, finding that this evidence was predicated on a lawful vehicle stop. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty before Judge Raja Rajeswari to aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [1] [a]).

On appeal, defendant contends that his vehicle was unlawfully stopped and, thus, his statement and the evidence of his suspended license constituted fruit of the poisonous tree, and should have been suppressed.

The factual findings and “credibility determinations of a hearing court are accorded great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” (People v. John, 119 AD3d 709, 710 [2014]). Upon our review of the record, we find no reason to discredit the arresting officer's testimony. “[A] police officer who can articulate credible facts establishing reasonable cause to believe that someone has violated a law has established a reasonable basis to effectuate a [traffic] stop” (People v. Guthrie, 25 NY3d 130, 133 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, the officer's testimony that he had observed defendant driving simultaneously over two marked lanes of traffic for 50 to 100 feet provided the requisite reasonable cause to believe that defendant had violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Defendant's contentions that the officer was required to testify about how long defendant had driven simultaneously in two lanes of traffic or that defendant had not employed a turn signal lack merit. As defendant's statement and evidence that his license had been suspended were predicated on a lawful vehicle stop, the Criminal Court properly denied defendant's suppression motion.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

WESTON, J.P., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.