People v Blankumsce

2009 NY Slip Op 07269 [66 AD3d 692]

October 6, 2009

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, December 9, 2009

The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Raphael Blankumsce, Appellant.

—[*1]Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Barry Stendig of counsel), for appellant. RichardA. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Merri Turk Lasky ofcounsel; Lorrie A. Zinno on the brief), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter,J.), rendered May 6, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in thethird degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review thedenial, after a hearing (Demakos, J.H.O.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motionwhich was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court did not err in crediting the testimony of Detective Kuhno at thesuppression hearing. The credibility determinations of the hearing court are to be accorded greatweight on appeal, given that court's unique perspective of having seen and heard the witnesses(see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]), and upon our review of the record,we perceive no reason to disturb the hearing court's determination here. Moreover, contrary tothe defendant's contention, Detective Kuhno's testimony was not " 'manifestly untrue, physicallyimpossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory' " (People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d86, 88 [1974], quoting 22 NY Jur, Evidence § 649; cf. People v Miret-Gonzalez,159 AD2d 647, 649 [1990]). Accordingly, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motionwhich was to suppress physical evidence was properly denied. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller andAustin, JJ., concur.