Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012

People v. Wilson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 20, 2012

96 A.D.3d 980; 948 N.Y.S.2d 77

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Rowley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Taylor v. Connelly (District Court, E.D. New York 2014)
People v. Birch (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
People v. White (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
People v. Lewis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Lewis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Lewis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Lewis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Hobson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Hobson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Condon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Condon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)

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 County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), rendered April 21, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty (Hayes, J.), and imposing sentence. The appeal from the judgment brings upon for review the denial, after a hearing (Hayes, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

“ ‘[A]s a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred,’ even if the underlying reason for the stop was to investigate another matter unrelated to the *981traffic violation” (People v Sluszka, 15 AD3d 421, 423 [2005], quoting People v Robinson, 97 NY2d 341, 348-349 [2001]; see Whren v United States, 517 US 806, 810 [1996]). Here, the police had probable cause to stop the vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger upon observing that it failed to signal when leaving the curb and entering a public highway (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [d]).

Additionally, “[t]he credibility determinations of the Supreme Court following a suppression hearing are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” (People v Smith, 77 AD3d 980, 981 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Spann, 82 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2011]). Here, contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the testimony of the officers at the hearing was not unbelievable (cf. Matter of Robert D., 69 AD3d 714, 716-717 [2010]). Based on the officers’ testimony, the hearing court properly concluded that the frisking of the defendant which resulted in the seizure of a gun was supported by the requisite predicate of reasonable suspicion by the police that the defendant might be armed (see e.g. People v Batista, 88 NY2d 650 [1996]; People v Benjamin, 51 NY2d 267, 271 [1980]; People v Caicedo, 69 AD3d 954 [2010]; People v Zingale, 246 AD2d 613 [1998]). Angiolillo, J.P., Belen, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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