People v. Langenbach

5 Citing cases

  1. People v. Foote

    121 A.D.3d 1292 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    Specifically, defendant contends that his expert's opinion on the issue of his criminal responsibility should have been accepted because his expert spent more time testing him. We will not disturb the trier of facts' determination, however, as we can find no “serious flaw” in the reliance by the People's expert on his own three-hour interview of defendant and his review of the relevant records, including defendant's medical records and statements to the police (People v. Demagall, 114 A.D.3d 189, 197, 978 N.Y.S.2d 416 [2014], lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 1035, 993 N.Y.S.2d 249, 17 N.E.3d 504 [2014] ; see People v. Langenbach, 38 A.D.3d 1105, 1105, 833 N.Y.S.2d 265 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 866, 840 N.Y.S.2d 896, 872 N.E.2d 1202 [2007] ; People v. Bolarinwa, 258 A.D.2d 827, 831–832, 687 N.Y.S.2d 442 [1999], lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 1014, 697 N.Y.S.2d 573, 719 N.E.2d 934 [1999] ). Although defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence was not properly preserved for our review (see

  2. People v. Foote

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 7205 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

    County Court's determination to reject defendant's affirmative defense was not against the weight of the evidence . Specifically, defendant contends that his expert's opinion on the issue of his criminal responsibility should have been accepted because his expert spent more time testing him. We will not disturb the trier of facts' determination, however, as we can find no "serious flaw" in the reliance by the People's expert on his own three-hour interview of defendant and his review of the relevant records, including defendant's medical records and statements to the police (People v Demagall, 114 AD3d 189, 197 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1035 [2014]; see People v Langenbach, 38 AD3d 1105, 1105 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 866 [2007]; People v Bolarinwa, 258 AD2d 827, 831-832 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1014 [1999]). Although defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence was not properly preserved for our review (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 493 [2008]; People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]), we will consider all of the proof under our weight of the evidence review (see People v Simmons, 115 AD3d 1018, 1019 [2014]).

  3. People v. Baggett

    57 A.D.3d 1093 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 33 times

    Here, this required proof that defendant was not subjected to custodial interrogation before Miranda warnings were administered. Even giving deference to the suppression court's credibility determinations ( see People v Ward, 42 AD3d 579, 580, lv denied 9 NY3d 883; People v Langenbach, 38 AD3d 1105, 1105, lv denied 9 NY3d 866), the People did not meet their burden. A reasonable, innocent person would not have felt free to leave at the time that defendant made his first incriminating statement.

  4. People v. Tillman

    57 A.D.3d 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 23 times

    This determination is made after considering cumulatively all the pertinent facts and circumstances ( see People v Shulman, 6 NY3d at 26). Deference is accorded to the suppression court's assessment of witness credibility ( see People v Langenbach, 38 AD3d 1105, lv denied 9 NY3d 866; People v Reid, 2 AD3d 1061, 1062, lv denied 3 NY3d 646). Witnesses provided a description, which was relayed to police, of a black male, wearing a dark Yankees baseball cap, a blue or gray t-shirt, carrying a small black bag on his shoulder, a possible name of "Lester," and headed from Lexington Avenue toward Clinton Avenue on foot. Defendant essentially matched the description, he was within three blocks of the incident, and one of the responding officers testified that he saw defendant glance at other advancing police and then abandon the small bag he was carrying. Defendant was detained, with police noticing blood on his hand and shirt, and the black bag, which was retrieved from about 10 feet away, contained a .45 caliber pistol.

  5. People v. Ruffin

    56 A.D.3d 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 5 times

    Defendant now appeals. Initially, we reject defendant's contention that County Court improperly credited the testimony of the officer who discovered the gun, inasmuch as credibility determinations made by the court at the suppression hearing should be accorded deference and the record amply supports the court's determination ( see People v Langenbach, 38 AD3d 1105, 1105, lv denied 9 NY3d 866; People v Craft, 36 AD3d 1145, 1148, lv denied 8 NY3d 945). Likewise, we find unpersuasive defendant's contention that County Court erred in denying defendant's request to keep the suppression hearing open for additional evidence.