| People v Mitchell |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08861 [123 AD3d 945] |
| December 17, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Terrel Mitchell, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Anna Pervukhin of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, Daniel Bresnahan, and Deborah E. Wassel of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Buchter, J.), rendered May 26, 2010, convicting him of promoting prostitution in thesecond degree (two counts), promoting prostitution in the third degree (two counts), andendangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Theappeal brings up for review the denial (Kohm, J.), after a hearing (O'Dwyer, J.H.O.), ofthose branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physicalevidence and his statements to law enforcement authorities.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
"The credibility determinations of a hearing court following a suppression hearingare accorded great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearlyunsupported by the record" (People v Hobson, 111 AD3d 958, 959 [2013]; seePeople v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Here, the record supports theSupreme Court's determination to credit the testimony of a police detective who testifiedat the suppression hearing. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the detective'stestimony was not incredible, patently tailored to overcome constitutional objections, orotherwise unworthy of belief (see People v Hobson, 111 AD3d at 959; People v McClendon, 92AD3d 959, 960 [2012]; People v Hardie, 64 AD3d 666 [2009]). Accordingly, thecourt properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were tosuppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement authorities. Dillon,J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.