Opinion
No. 2023-50645
06-30-2023
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jason Brown, Defendant-Appellant.
Unpublished Opinion
PRESENT: Brigantti, J.P., Michael, James, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Cori H. Weston, J., at initial suppression motion and hearing; Linda Poust Lopez, J., at further motion, suppression hearing, plea and sentence), rendered October 24, 2018, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction (Cori H. Weston, J., at initial suppression motion and hearing; Linda Poust Lopez, J., at further motion, suppression hearing, plea and sentence), rendered October 24, 2018, affirmed.
The courts at the suppression hearings properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the courts' credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761 [1977]). The unrebutted police testimony, which was credited by both courts, established that police observed defendant's vehicle traveling at approximately 25 miles per hour when the passenger door suddenly "sw[u]ng" open "while the vehicle was still in motion;" that "the vehicle continue[d] traveling" until eventually the door was closed; and that the officers stopped the vehicle to ensure that the female seated in the passenger seat was safe and did not need aid. In these circumstances, the stop of the vehicle was justified based on considerations of public safety, even where an "actual violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law [is] not... detectable" (People v Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413, 420 [1975]), and this safety concern outweighs the interference of defendant's liberty (see People v Holstein, 154 A.D.2d 905 [1989], lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 905 [1989]; People v Graham, 70 Misc.3d 126 [A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51484[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2020); United States v Touzel, 409 F.Supp.2d 511 [D Vt 2006], affd 281 Fed.Appx. 37 [2d Cir 2008]). The determinations of the hearing courts, which actually saw and heard the witness testify, are entitled to deference, and it is not our practice to substitute our own fact-findings for those under review unless the latter are plainly unjustified or clearly erroneous (see People v Martin, 112 A.D.3d 453, 454 [2013]).
Defendant's contention that the arresting officer's testimony at the reopened suppression hearing was unworthy of belief is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not raise this argument at the suppression hearing (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Britton, 113 A.D.3d 1101, 1102 [2014], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 1154 [2014]). We decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. Since we do not find the officer's testimony to be manifestly untrue, contrary to common experience, self-contradictory, or tailored, we decline to disturb the court's conclusion affirming the finding of the initial hearing court that the testimony was credible (see People v Garland, 155 A.D.3d 527, 529 [2017], affd 32 N.Y.3d 1094 [2018], cert denied ___ U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 2525 [2020]).