| People v Golden |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 02678 [149 AD3d 777] |
| April 5, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Johnathan Golden, Appellant. |
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Ronald Zapata of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, and Danielle M. O'Boyle of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.),rendered May 5, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), criminalpossession of a weapon in the fourth degree, unlawful sale, possession, or use of an imitationpistol, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, and operating amotor vehicle without a license, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal bringsup for review the denial, after a hearing (Paynter, J.), of those branches of the defendant'somnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcementofficials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion whichwas to suppress physical evidence. "A suppression court's credibility findings are entitled to greatdeference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" (People v Bookman, 131 AD3d1258, 1260 [2015]; see People vVargas, 123 AD3d 1149 [2014]; People v Diggs, 38 AD3d 565 [2007]). Contrary to the defendant'scontention, the court did not err in crediting the testimony of a police officer that he observed thedefendant make a right turn without signaling, which justified the stop of the defendant's vehiclefor a traffic infraction, ultimately leading to the recovery of the challenged physical evidence(see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [a]; People v Guthrie, 25 NY3d 130,133 [2015]; People v Robinson, 97 NY2d 341, 348 [2001]; People v Bookman,131 AD3d at 1260; People v Davis,103 AD3d 810, 811 [2013]; Peoplev Glover, 84 AD3d 977, 978 [2011]; People v Leiva, 33 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2006]). The court'scredibility determination was supported by the record (see People v Barnes, 129 AD3d 981, 982 [2015]; People v Rowley, 127 AD3d 884,885 [2015]; People v Glenn, 53AD3d 622, 624 [2008]; People vJames, 19 AD3d 617 [2005]; People v Lam, 226 AD2d 554 [1996]; cf.People v Lebron, 184 AD2d 784 [1992]).
The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motionwhich was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials. The statements were madeafter the defendant intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights(see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]), and were not the product of coercion (see People v Redd, 141 AD3d 546,548 [2016]; People v Baxter, 140AD3d 1180, 1181 [2016]; People vCruz, 137 AD3d 1158, 1158-1159 [2016]; People v Kaye, 137 AD3d 938, 939 [2016]). Mastro, J.P.,Chambers, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.