| People v Holland |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 08436 [133 AD3d 779] |
| November 18, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Rasheem M. Holland, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Ronald Zapata of counsel), for appellant, andappellant pro se.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Jonathan K. Yi of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Latella, J.), rendered September 24, 2013, convicting him of criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the fifth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substancein the seventh degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings upfor review the denial, after a hearing (Paynter, J.), of that branch of the defendant'somnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
"The credibility determinations of a hearing court are accorded great deference onappeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" (People v Glenn, 53 AD3d622, 623 [2008]). Here, the record supports the hearing court's determination tocredit the testimony of the police officer, who observed the defendant sitting in anilluminated vehicle at night, holding a glass crack pipe close to his face (see People v Washington, 108AD3d 578, 579 [2013]; People v Glenn, 53 AD3d at 623). Contrary to thedefendant's contention, the police officer's testimony was not incredible as a matter oflaw, patently tailored to overcome constitutional objections, or inherently unworthy ofbelief (cf. People v Lebron, 184 AD2d 784 [1992]). Accordingly, the hearingcourt properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was tosuppress physical evidence.
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro sesupplemental brief, are without merit. Hall, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ.,concur.