Opinion
2014-12-17
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Terrel MITCHELL, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Anna Pervukhin of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Daniel Bresnahan, and Deborah E. Wassel of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Anna Pervukhin of counsel), for appellant.Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Daniel Bresnahan, and Deborah E. Wassel of counsel), for respondent.
, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL and L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered May 26, 2010, convicting him of promoting prostitution in the second degree (two counts), promoting prostitution in the third degree (two counts), and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Kohm, J.), after a hearing (O'Dwyer, J.H.O.), of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement authorities.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
“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” (People v. Hobson, 111 A.D.3d 958, 959, 975 N.Y.S.2d 682; see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380). Here, the record supports the Supreme Court's determination to credit the testimony of a police detective who testified at the suppression hearing. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the detective's testimony was not incredible, patently tailored to overcome constitutional objections, or otherwise unworthy of belief ( see People v. Hobson, 111 A.D.3d at 959, 975 N.Y.S.2d 682; People v. McClendon, 92 A.D.3d 959, 960, 939 N.Y.S.2d 530; People v. Hardie, 64 A.D.3d 666, 883 N.Y.S.2d 275). Accordingly, the court properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement authorities.