| People v Blake |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08654 [123 AD3d 838] |
| December 10, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Mario Blake, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Paul Skip Laisure of counsel), for appellant, andappellant pro se.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (LeonardJoblove, Sholom J. Twersky, and John G. McCarthy of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Riviezzo, J.), rendered August 23, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial(Parker, J.), after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which wasto suppress physical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court did not err in denying that branch of the defendant's omnibusmotion which was to suppress a gun found in the defendant's vehicle. The police officerspossessed an articulable basis for requesting information from the defendant, as thesubject vehicle was double-parked and playing loud music (see People v Ocasio,85 NY2d 982, 985 [1995]; People v Thomas, 19 AD3d 32 [2005]). Once the officerssaw the gun in plain view in the vehicle, they had probable cause to arrest the defendant(see People v Mills, 93AD3d 1198 [2012]; People v Grady, 272 AD2d 952 [2000]; People vBlyden, 239 AD2d 301 [1997]).
The hearing court's credibility determinations are entitled to great deference onappeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Marcelle, 120AD3d 833 [2014]; People vTaylor, 120 AD3d 519, 520 [2014]; People v Richardson, 118 AD3d 821 [2014]). There is nobasis in the record to disturb the court's determination that the officers' testimony wascredible. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police officers' testimony was notincredible as a matter of law, as it was not manifestly untrue, physically impossible,contrary to experience, or self-contradictory (see Matter of Sherrod H., 116 AD3d 954 [2014]; People v Lynch, 63 AD3d959, 961 [2009]; People vJames, 19 AD3d 617 [2005]). Nor did any inconsistencies establish that theofficers' testimony was tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see People vGonzalez, 224 AD2d 322 [1996]; People v Thomas, 175 AD2d 852 [1991]).Moreover, any inconsistencies in the officers' testimony were minor and did not rendertheir testimony incredible or unreliable (see People v Parris, 70 AD3d 725, 726 [2010]; People vHopkins, 244 AD2d 357 [1997]).
The defendant's contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during her[*2]summation were improper is without merit. Thechallenged comments were fair comment upon the evidence, responsive to argumentsand theories raised in the defense summation, and remained within the broad bounds ofrhetorical comment permissible in closing argument (see People v Wiley, 119 AD3d 821 [2014]; People v Jean, 118 AD3d1024 [2014]; People vBurgos, 97 AD3d 689 [2012]). Mastro, J.P., Roman, Miller and Maltese, JJ.,concur.