Opinion
2013-10843 Ind. No. 24/13.
03-09-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Patrick M. FITZGERALD, appellant.
Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), rendered November 21, 2013, convicting him of driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(2), driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3), and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion, made during the trial, to reopen the suppression hearing. The defendant failed to demonstrate that he discovered additional facts, not discoverable with reasonable diligence before the determination of the motion, that would have affected the court's ultimate determination of his suppression motion (see CPL 710.404; People v. Ekwegbalu, 131 A.D.3d 982, 984, 15 N.Y.S.3d 847; People v. Jackson, 97 A.D.3d 693, 694, 947 N.Y.S.2d 613; People v. Velez, 39 A.D.3d 38, 42, 829 N.Y.S.2d 209).
Furthermore, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.155; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are without merit.
BALKIN, J.P., DICKERSON, HALL and ROMAN, JJ., concur.