| People v Condon |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08029 [100 AD3d 920] |
| November 21, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v William Condon, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Sharon Y.Brodt of counsel; Andrew Dykens on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.),rendered June 16, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree,upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after ahearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physicalevidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The credibility determinations of a hearing court are accorded great deference on appeal, andwill not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; People vWilson, 96 AD3d 980, 981 [2012]; People v Marinus, 90 AD3d 677, 678 [2011]). Here, the recordsupports the Supreme Court's determination to credit the testimony of the arresting officer that heapproached the defendant's vehicle, which was parked on the street near a large dance club,because he observed the front seat passenger drinking from a bottle which he believed to containalcohol. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony of the arresting officer was notincredible, patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections, or otherwise unworthy of belief(see People v Johnson, 83 AD3d733, 734 [2011]; People vCobb, 71 AD3d 781, 782 [2010]; People v Glenn, 53 AD3d 622, 623 [2008]).
The Supreme Court also properly found, upon crediting the arresting officer's testimony, thatonce the front seat passenger opened his door, enabling the officer to detect the odor of marijuanaand observe two plastic bags of marijuana in the center console, he had probable cause to arrestthe defendant and search his car (seePeople v Carter, 60 AD3d 1103, 1105 [2009]; People v Parris, 26 AD3d 393, 394 [2006]; People v Cruz, 7 AD3d 335, 337[2004]; see also People v George,78 AD3d 728, 729 [2010]; People vCirigliano, 15 AD3d 672, 673 [2005]). Since the defendant's arrest was proper, hissubsequent statements to the police cannot be deemed the fruit of the poisonous tree subject tothe exclusionary rule (see People vMcClendon, 92 AD3d 959, 960 [2012]; People v Day, 8 AD3d 495, 496 [2004]). Accordingly, the SupremeCourt properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppressphysical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials. Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Florioand Dickerson, JJ., concur.