Opinion
2014-01-9
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roberto DURAN, Defendant–Appellant.
The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (V. Marika Meis of counsel), and Goodwin Procter LLP, New York (Philip Desgranges of counsel), for appellant. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Ravi Kantha of counsel), for respondent.
The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (V. Marika Meis of counsel), and Goodwin Procter LLP, New York (Philip Desgranges of counsel), for appellant. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Ravi Kantha of counsel), for respondent.
GONZALEZ, P.J., TOM, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Raymond L. Bruce, J.), rendered July 29, 2011, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge for a period of one year and a $500 fine, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are accorded great deference ( see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380 [1977] ).
The suppression court's restrictions on defendant's introduction of evidence were proper exercises of discretion, particularly in light of the fact that a suppression hearing is not a proceeding to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty ( see People v. DeJohn, 239 A.D.2d 184, 185, 657 N.Y.S.2d 898 [1st Dept.1997], lv. denied90 N.Y.2d 904, 663 N.Y.S.2d 516, 686 N.E.2d 228 [1997]; see also People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 336–338, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608 [1990], cert. denied498 U.S. 833, 111 S.Ct. 99, 112 L.Ed.2d 70 [1990] ). Defendant was permitted to establish that nowhere in any paperwork prepared by, or through an interview of, the arresting officer was there any mention of the officer's claim that defendant made an illegal U-turn. The officer also testified that he had no recollection of giving this information to the complaint room prosecutor. The omission having been amply demonstrated, further evidence on this subject would have been cumulative. As an alternative holding, we find any error in this regard was harmless.