| People v Cruz |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 06677 [131 AD3d 706] |
| August 26, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael Cruz, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Barry Stendig of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove andMorgan J. Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Tomei, J.), rendered January 24, 2013, convicting him of murder in the first degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial,after a hearing (Chun, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was tosuppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the testimony given by a detective at thesuppression hearing was not manifestly untrue or contrary to experience, and thetestimony did not appear to have been patently tailored to nullify constitutionalobjections (see People vBlake, 123 AD3d 838, 838-839 [2014]; People v Lewis, 117 AD3d 751, 752 [2014]; People v Phillips, 84 AD3d1274 [2011]). Although, upon the exercise of our factual review power, this Courtmay make its own findings of fact if it determines that the hearing court incorrectlyassessed the evidence, we cannot say that the hearing court was incorrect in crediting thedetective's testimony (see People v Lewis, 117 AD3d at 752; People v Woods, 115 AD3d997, 998 [2014]; People vOliver, 103 AD3d 817 [2013]). Accordingly, the hearing court properly deniedthat branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements tolaw enforcement officials.
"[T]he trial court has broad discretion to limit cross-examination when questions arerepetitive, irrelevant or only marginally relevant, concern collateral issues, or threaten tomislead the jury" (People vPena, 113 AD3d 701, 702 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Contraryto the defendant's contention, the trial court did not deprive him of his right to confrontthe witnesses against him by limiting his cross-examination of the detective at trial(see id.; People vRivera, 98 AD3d 529 [2012]; People v Legere, 81 AD3d 746, 750 [2011]). Rivera, J.P.,Dickerson, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ., concur.