Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003

People v. Esposito

People v. Esposito
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 27, 2003
301 A.D.2d 660; 753 N.Y.S.2d 880
People v. Esposito

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marras, J.), rendered November 19, 2001, convicting him of criminal possession of marijuana in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, 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.

The factual findings and credibility determinations of a hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761; People v Jakins, 277 AD2d 328; People v Fryar, 276 AD2d 641). The hearing minutes support the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence (see People v Crespo, 292 AD2d 177, lv denied 98 NY2d 709; People v Sergeant, 281 AD2d 438; People v Licurgo, 277 AD2d 396).

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to sever the marijuana possession count from the remaining arson-related counts of the indictment. The proof in support of the arson-related counts would have been material and admissible as evidence-in-chief upon a trial of the drug charge, as the proof related to the reasons for the defendant’s arrest (see CPL 200.20 [2] [b]; People v Bongarzone, 69 NY2d 892, 895; People v Nolan, 277 AD2d 400). Moreover, the defendant made various statements at the time of his arrest on the drug charge which would have been material and admissible as evidence-in-chief upon a trial of the arson-related counts (see People v Nolan, supra; People v Quartieri, 171 AD2d 889). Santucci, J.P., O’Brien, Goldstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.