| People v Marinus |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08957 [90 AD3d 677] |
| December 6, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Christopher Marinus, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green and Michael Brennan ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Efman, J.),rendered January 7, 2009, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branchof the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcementofficials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which wasto suppress the statements he gave to law enforcement officials on July 1, 2007, and July 11,2007. The credibility determinations made by the County Court after a suppression hearing areentitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by therecord (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; People v Spann, 82 AD3d 1013,1014 [2011]; People v Smith, 77AD3d 980, 981 [2010]; People v Leggio, 305 AD2d 518, 519 [2003]). Contrary tothe defendant's contention, the evidence presented at the suppression hearing supports the CountyCourt's determination that a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have believedthat he was in custody at the time the statements were made (see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; People v Borukhova, 89 AD3d194 [2d Dept 2011]; People v Smith, 77 AD3d at 981; People v Perez, 44 AD3d 441, 442[2007]; People v Dillhunt, 41 AD3d216, 217 [2007]). Accordingly, the statements were not the product of custodialinterrogation improperly conducted without the administration of Miranda warnings(see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444 [1966]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt of assault in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, infulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence(see CPL 470.15 [5]; People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert [*2]denied 542US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing therecord here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence(see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.