| People v Wilson |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05030 [96 AD3d 980] |
| June 20, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Dukieem M. Wilson, Appellant. |
—[*1]
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.),rendered April 21, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree, upon his plea of guilty (Hayes, J.), and imposing sentence. The appeal from the judgmentbrings upon for review the denial, after a hearing (Hayes, J.), of that branch of the defendant'somnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
" '[A]s a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the policehave probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred,' even if the underlying reasonfor the stop was to investigate another matter unrelated to the traffic violation" (People v Sluszka, 15 AD3d 421,423 [2005], quoting People v Robinson, 97 NY2d 341, 348-349 [2001]; see Whren vUnited States, 517 US 806, 810 [1996]). Here, the police had probable cause to stop thevehicle in which the defendant was a passenger upon observing that it failed to signal whenleaving the curb and entering a public highway (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §1163 [d]).
Additionally, "[t]he credibility determinations of the Supreme Court following a suppressionhearing are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearlyunsupported by the record" (People vSmith, 77 AD3d 980, 981 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Spann, 82 AD3d1013, 1014 [2011]). Here, contrary to the defendant's contentions, the testimony of theofficers at the hearing was not unbelievable (cf. Matter of Robert D., 69 AD3d 714, 716-717 [2010]). Based onthe officers' testimony, the hearing court properly concluded that the frisking of the defendantwhich resulted in the seizure of a gun was supported by the requisite predicate of reasonablesuspicion by the police that the defendant might be armed (see e.g. People v Batista, 88NY2d 650 [1996]; People v Benjamin, 51 NY2d 267, 271 [1980]; People v Caicedo, 69 AD3d 954[2010]; People v Zingale, 246 AD2d 613 [1998]). Angiolillo, J.P., Belen, Roman andSgroi, JJ., concur.