People v. Cummings

10 Citing cases

  1. People v. Delvois

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 51443 (N.Y. App. Term 2011)

    To the extent that defendant questions the consistency of the police officer's testimony, this contention involves an issue of credibility (see People vTracy , 19 Misc 3d 145[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51128[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 2008]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the credible evidence (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890; Romero, 7 NY3d at 644-645; Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495; People v Cummings, 291 AD2d 454, 455). Defendant's contention that he was unconstitutionally denied an opportunity to present a summation is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.

  2. People v. Phillmore

    2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 51426 (N.Y. App. Term 2005)

    The People's proof established that defendant threatened complainant with a butcher knife and verbally threatened to take the complainant's life, a course of conduct that was observed by roommates and the arresting officers, one of whom wrested the knife from defendant's grasp. While defendant attempted to describe a sharply diverging scenario and denied key aspects of the incident as described by police and other witnesses, it is axiomatic that insofar as the proof concerns matters of credibility and "the relative probative force of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony" ( People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495), such matters are primarily for the finder of fact who saw and heard the witnesses ( People v. Cummings, 291 AD2d 454, 455; People v. Hernandez, 288 AD2d 489, 490). Defendant's testimony "merely created factual issues which the jury, as the final arbiter of credibility, resolved against him" ( People v. Reynolds, 133 AD2d 499, 500).

  3. People v. Collado

    7 Misc. 3d 35 (N.Y. App. Term 2005)

    15; People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Insofar as the proof concerned matters of credibility and "the relative probative force of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony" ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted]), such matters are primarily for the finder of fact who saw and heard the witnesses ( People v. Cummings, 291 AD2d 454, 455; People v. Hernandez, 288 AD2d 489, 490), which included the testimonies of the hospital investigator and the detective whose accounts were not impeached or contradicted at trial to any meaningful extent. Defendant's own testimony "merely created factual issues which the [court], as the . . . arbiter of credibility, resolved against him" ( People v. Reynolds, 133 AD2d 499, 500; People v. Gertz, 189 Misc 2d 315, 316 [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 2001]), and whatever discrepancies may be discerned in complainant's testimony did not render her testimony so manifestly untrue or so contrary to experience and common sense as to require that her account of the offense be rejected as unworthy of belief ( People v. Coico, 156 AD2d 578, 579; People v. Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88).

  4. People v. Nuzzi

    2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 51690 (N.Y. App. Term 2004)

    The court credited the testimony of defendant's counsel at the hearing that defendant was fully informed of the nature of the offenses to which he pleaded guilty. Matters of credibility are primarily for the finder of fact who heard and observed the witness ( e.g. People v. Cummings, 291 AD2d 454, 455; People v. Hernandez, 288 AD2d 489, 490), and upon the available facts and circumstances the court's conclusion thereon is not so clearly erroneous as to require that it be disregarded ( People v. Brown, 234 AD2d 211, 213, affd 91 NY2d 854). With respect to the significance of his plea for his employment status, we note that a criminal court "is in no position to advise [a defendant] on all the ramifications of a guilty plea personal to a defendant" ( People v. Ford, 86 NY2d at 403; see also People v. Latham, 90 NY2d 795, 798), the obligation being confined to matters constituting "direct" as opposed to "collateral" consequences of a plea ( People v. Ford, 86 NY2d at 403).

  5. People v. Henry

    2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 51674 (N.Y. App. Term 2004)

    This testimony was not manifestly untrue, impossible, contrary to experience or so self-contradictory that it must be disregarded ( see People v. Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). While there were inconsistencies within and between both versions of the events of August 13, 2002, these were relatively minor and best resolved through the factfinder's evaluation of the witnesses' credibility, which is to be given great deference, as the trier of fact saw and heard the witnesses and was in a position to assess their demeanor ( see People v. Cummings, 291 AD2d 454; People v. Hernandez, 288 AD2d 489). In any event, the complainant's account of the incident — that defendant came at him with a piece of wood, that complainant raised his hands to protect his face and that defendant struck him, injuring both his hand and his face — is consistent with the injuries testified to and their treatment, which included removal of splinters of wood from the wounds, and the court, as trier of fact, was entitled to accord to that account the weight that it did ( see People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495).

  6. People v. Bellamy

    2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 51347 (N.Y. App. Term 2004)

    15; People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Where, as here, the weight to be accorded the proof depends on resolutions of credibility, and "the relative probative force of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony" ( id.), such matters are primarily for the finder of fact who saw and heard the witnesses ( People v. Cummings, 291 AD2d 454, 455; People v. Hernandez, 288 AD2d 489, 490).

  7. People v. Wilson

    5 A.D.3d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 15 times

    Based on the defendant's resemblance to the individual in the wanted poster, the police had, at the very least, the right to approach him to request information ( see People v. Bethea, 239 A.D.2d 510; see also People v. Jacob, 202 A.D.2d 444). The defendant's subsequent flight when the officers asked if they could speak to him provided reasonable suspicion to pursue and stop him ( see People v. Woods, 98 N.Y.2d 627; People v. Martinez, 80 N.Y.2d 444, 447-448; People v. Sergeant, 281 A.D.2d 438, 439), and his abandonment of a weapon during the chase provided the police with probable cause to arrest him ( see People v. Wigfall, 295 A.D.2d 222, 223; People v. Cummings, 291 A.D.2d 454, 455; People v. Lipsey, 247 A.D.2d 246). Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the drugs recovered upon a search of his pockets ( see People v. Cummings, supra; People v. Valentine, 220 A.D.2d 708, 709). FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.

  8. People v. Bland

    302 A.D.2d 926 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 4 times

    After defendant falsely stated that he had been shot, however, the arresting officer searched defendant again, reached into his right rear pocket, found the gun and seized it. Probable cause exists to justify an arrest when it reasonably "appear[s] to be at least more probable than not that a crime has taken place and that the one arrested is its perpetrator" (People v. Carrasquillo, 54 N.Y.2d 248, 254). Here, "the totality of the circumstances of the encounter as it progressed" established probable cause for the arrest of defendant (People v. Troche, 185 A.D.2d 368, 369, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 977; see People v. Kelland, 171 A.D.2d 885, 886, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 997), and thus the search of his pocket was proper as incident to that lawful arrest (see People v. Cummings, 291 A.D.2d 454, 455, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 636; People v. Welch, 289 A.D.2d 936, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 641; People v. Gonzalez, 250 A.D.2d 545, 546, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 897).

  9. People v. Lawson

    36 Misc. 3d 1212 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

    For at that moment, reasonable suspicion did not yet exist to believe that any of the three individuals had committed a crime or that there was contraband in the vehicle. However, since the jewelry was returned to McDonald, its later seizure at the 112th Precinct was justified as incidental to a lawful arrest (People v. Bland, 302 A.D.2d 926, lv to app den 99 N.Y.2d 652;People v. Cummings, 291 A.D.2d 454, lv to app den 98 N.Y.2d 636). The Oral and Written Statements—( Huntley )

  10. People v. Ahmed

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 31515 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009)

    "The jury's verdict should not be disturbed unless it is clearly unsupported by the record." People v. Cummings, 291 A.D.2d 454 (2d Dept. 2002). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, "there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences" which could lead the jury to conclude that Defendant's conduct directly caused the injuries to Bunkless.