People v. Fitzgerald

People v Fitzgerald (2016 NY Slip Op 01692)

People v Fitzgerald

2016 NY Slip Op 01692

Decided on March 9, 2016

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on March 9, 2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
L. PRISCILLA HALL
SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

2013-10843
(Ind. No. 24/13)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Patrick M. Fitzgerald, appellant.

Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), rendered November 21, 2013, convicting him of driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(2), driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3), and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion, made during the trial, to reopen the suppression hearing. The defendant failed to demonstrate that he discovered additional facts, not discoverable with reasonable diligence before the determination of the motion, that would have affected the court's ultimate determination of his suppression motion (see CPL 710.40[4]; People v Ekwegbalu, 131 AD3d 982, 984; People v Jackson, 97 AD3d 693, 694; People v Velez, 39 AD3d 38, 42).

Furthermore, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), we nevertheless accord great deference to the fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are without merit.

BALKIN, J.P., DICKERSON, HALL and ROMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court