| People v Sykes |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 07835 [122 AD3d 1306] |
| November 14, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vWillie Sykes, Appellant. |
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Kristin M. Preve of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley R. Small of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller,A.J.), rendered September 16, 2011. The appeal was held by this Court by order enteredOctober 4, 2013, decision was reserved and the matter was remitted to Supreme Court,Erie County, for further proceedings (110 AD3d 1437). The proceedings were held andcompleted (M. William Boller, A.J.).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: We previously held this case, reserved decision, and remitted thematter to Supreme Court to determine whether the police officer had a founded suspicionof criminal activity to justify his inquiry (People v Sykes, 110 AD3d 1437, 1438[2013]). Upon remittal, the court denied defendant's request for suppression, and we nowaffirm. The court properly concluded that the police officer developed a foundedsuspicion based upon defendant's inability to produce a vehicle registration or driver'slicense or any form of identification, his nervous and fidgety behavior, and his suspiciousanswers regarding his destination (see People v McCarley, 55 AD3d 1396, 1396-1397 [2008],lv denied 11 NY3d 899 [2008]; see also People v Garcia, 20 NY3d 317, 322 [2012]; seegenerally People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 191-192 [1992]; People v DeBour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]). We reject defendant's contention that the policeofficer's testimony was "incredible" and "self-contradictory," and we conclude that thecourt's credibility determinations are entitled to deference (see People v Prochilo,41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; People v Twillie, 28 AD3d 1236, 1237 [2006], lvdenied 7 NY3d 795 [2006]). Finally, we reject defendant's contention that the courtexceeded the scope of the remittal order. The court was required to "make findings offact essential to the determination" whether the police officer had the requisite foundedsuspicion (CPL 710.60 [4]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Peradotto, Carni, Valentinoand Whalen, JJ.