Opinion
10-18-2017
In the Matter of CROMWELL S. (Anonymous), appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Tamara A. Steckler, Marcia Egger, and Lori Masco of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Deborah A. Brenner and Dona B. Morris of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Tamara A. Steckler, Marcia Egger, and Lori Masco of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Deborah A. Brenner and Dona B. Morris of counsel), for respondent.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., SHERI S. ROMAN, ROBERT J. MILLER, and LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Alan Beckoff, J.), dated March 4, 2016. The order of disposition, insofar as appealed from, adjudicated Cromwell S. a juvenile delinquent. The appeal brings up for review a fact-finding order of that court dated November 16, 2015, which, after a hearing, found that Cromwell S. committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a weapon by a person under the age of sixteen (two counts), and the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of Cromwell S.'s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly denied that branch of the appellant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. The credibility determinations of a hearing court following a suppression hearing are accorded great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v. Golden, 149 A.D.3d 777, 52 N.Y.S.3d 111 ; People v. Pleasant, 146 A.D.3d 985, 987, 46 N.Y.S.3d 643 ; People v. James, 19 A.D.3d 617, 618, 798 N.Y.S.2d 483 ). Contrary to the appellant's contention, the police officers' testimony that they saw the handle of a black gun sticking out of the pocket of his white jacket does not appear to have been tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see People v. Johnson, 46 A.D.3d 838, 839, 849 N.Y.S.2d 82 ; People v. James, 19 A.D.3d at 618, 798 N.Y.S.2d 483 ; People v. Grajales, 187 A.D.2d 631, 632, 590 N.Y.S.2d 890 ). Furthermore, the officers' testimony was not incredible as a matter of law, as it was not manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory (see People v. Pleasant, 146 A.D.3d at 987, 46 N.Y.S.3d 643 ; People v. Kelly, 131 A.D.3d 484, 485–486, 15 N.Y.S.3d 391 ; People v. Barnes, 129 A.D.3d 981, 982, 11 N.Y.S.3d 669 ; People v. Blake, 123 A.D.3d 838, 839, 996 N.Y.S.2d 725 ). Any inconsistencies in the officers' testimony were minor, and did not render their testimony incredible or unreliable (see People v. Blake, 123 A.D.3d at 839, 996 N.Y.S.2d 725 ).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 N.Y.2d 792, 793, 513 N.Y.S.2d 111, 505 N.E.2d 621 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a weapon by a person under the age of sixteen. Moreover, upon our independent review of the record, we are satisfied that the Family Court's fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Dzahiah W., 152 A.D.3d 612, 58 N.Y.S.3d 159 ; Matter of Jarell W., 137 A.D.3d 1154, 1155, 26 N.Y.S.3d 877 ).The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.