| People v Barley |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02022 [82 AD3d 996] |
| March 15, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v MalikBarley, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley, Andre K. Cizmarik,Anthony J. Viola, and Nancy H. Van Der Veer of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ayres, J.),rendered March 20, 2009, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial,after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress astatement he made to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of hisomnibus motion which was to suppress a statement he made to law enforcement officials. Thedefendant's statement, although made before being informed of his Miranda rights(see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]), was spontaneous and "was not triggered byany police questioning or other conduct which reasonably could have been expected to elicit adeclaration from him" (People vCastro, 73 AD3d 800, 801 [2010]; see People v Henderson, 57 AD3d 562 [2008]).
Moreover, the credibility determinations of a hearing court are accorded deference on appeal,and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Prochilo,41 NY2d 759 [1977]; People vGeorge, 78 AD3d 728 [2010]; People v Pearson, 20 AD3d 575, 576 [2005]; People vRivera, 186 AD2d 692 [1992]). Here, the hearing testimony of a police officer, who statedthat he observed the defendant in possession of a gun in plain view inside the defendant's vehicleafter stopping the vehicle for a traffic violation, was not incredible and did not appear to havebeen patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see People v James, 19 AD3d 617 [2005]; People v Foster,173 AD2d 841 [1991]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event,without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Miller, JJ., concur.