| People v Cobb |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01974 [71 AD3d 781] |
| March 9, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Deval Cobb, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, JeanetteLifschitz, and Andrew Werner of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella,J.), rendered June 9, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in thefifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review thedenial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppressphysical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
" 'The credibility determinations of a hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal,and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record' " (People v Moran, 68 AD3d 786,787 [2009], quoting People vMartinez, 58 AD3d 870, 870-871 [2009]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, thetestimony of the police detective at the suppression hearing was not incredible, patently tailoredto nullify constitutional objections, or otherwise unworthy of belief (see People v Cooks, 57 AD3d796, 797 [2008]; People vCherry, 46 AD3d 834 [2007]; People v Hay, 37 AD3d 494 [2007]; People v Rivera, 27 AD3d 489,490 [2006]).
Furthermore, the hearing court's determination that the police possessed probable cause toarrest the defendant was adequately supported by the record (see People v Soto, 63 AD3d 512, 512-513 [2009]; People v Scott-Heron, 11 AD3d364 [2004]; People v Brown, 193 AD2d 612, 613 [1993]; People v Guine,173 AD2d 849 [1991]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of thedefendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. Covello, J.P., Miller,Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.