| People v Ruffin |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08556 [56 AD3d 892] |
| November 13, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Malvin E.Ruffin, Appellant. |
—[*1] Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Ann C. Sullivan, New York ProsecutorsTraining Institute, Inc., Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
Kane, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Jacon, J.), renderedAugust 14, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possessionof a weapon in the third degree.
After police received a report of the threatened use of a gun at a local bar, police pulled overdefendant, who was driving a vehicle matching the subject description. During the investigation,an officer shined a light in the windshield of defendant's vehicle and spotted a gun gripprotruding from under the driver's seat. The officer retrieved the gun and defendant subsequentlyadmitted that it was his. After County Court denied defendant's request to suppress both the gunand his statements, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a weapon inthe third degree and was sentenced to a prison term of five years, followed by five years ofpostrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
Initially, we reject defendant's contention that County Court improperly credited thetestimony of the officer who discovered the gun, inasmuch as credibility determinations made bythe court at the suppression hearing should be accorded deference and the record amply supportsthe court's determination (see People vLangenbach, 38 AD3d 1105, 1105 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 866 [2007]; People v Craft, 36 AD3d 1145,1148 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 945 [2007]).[*2]
Likewise, we find unpersuasive defendant's contentionthat County Court erred in denying defendant's request to keep the suppression hearing open foradditional evidence. The decision of whether to grant an adjournment is generally committed tothe sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion(see People v Mao-Sheng Lin, 50AD3d 1251, 1253 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 961 [2008]; People vBeekman, 193 AD2d 842, 843-844 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 713 [1993]). Here,defendant contends that the court abused its discretion by refusing an adjournment to secure thetestimony of Jamel Bell, who was present when defendant was apprehended. Inasmuch asdefendant had taken no steps to secure Bell's attendance prior to his recent release on bail onunrelated charges, his attorney did not know his whereabouts, and defendant had unsuccessfullychecked three addresses and had information that Bell might have fled to New York City, wefind that County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the requested adjournment (seePeople v Foy, 32 NY2d 473, 478 [1973]; People v Soulia, 263 AD2d 869, 873[1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 829 [1999]; see also People v Iglesias, 184 AD2d432, 432 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 930 [1992]). Additionally, we do not find that thecourt erred in denying an adjournment for defendant to supply additional evidence, inasmuch asone adjournment had already been granted, and defendant had more than adequate time toprepare for the suppression hearing (see People v Mao-Sheng Lin, 50 AD3d at 1253;see also People v Brown, 305 AD2d 1068, 1069-1070 [2003], lv denied 100NY2d 579 [2003]).
We have examined defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Rose and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.