Opinion
11-15-2023
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lewanna Beans, Defendant-Appellant.
Unpublished Opinion
PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Tisch, J.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Marc J. Whiten, J., at suppression hearing; Shawn T. Kelly, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered July 20, 2015, convicting her, upon her plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated, and imposing sentence.
PER CURIAM.
Judgment of conviction (Marc J. Whiten, J., at suppression hearing; Shawn T. Kelly, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered July 20, 2015, affirmed.
The suppression court, adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by a judicial hearing officer, properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The police officer's observation of various traffic infractions provided probable cause for the stop of defendant's vehicle (see People v Hinshaw, 35 N.Y.3d 427 [2020]). Defendant's contention that the arresting officer's testimony was patently tailored to meet constitutional objections is unpreserved for appellate review since she did not raise this argument at the suppression hearing (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Turner, 203 A.D.3d 758, 759 [2022]). 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 conclusion 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 __ US __, 140 S.Ct. 2525 [2020]). "[M]uch weight must be accorded the determination of the suppression court with its peculiar advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses" (People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761 [1977]).
I concur.