Opinion
2014-11-14
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Willie SYKES, Defendant–Appellant.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Kristin M. Preve of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley R. Small of Counsel), for Respondent.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Kristin M. Preve of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley R. Small of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO AND WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
We previously held this case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to Supreme Court to determine whether the police officer had a founded suspicion of criminal activity to justify his inquiry (People v. Sykes, 110 A.D.3d 1437, 1438, 972 N.Y.S.2d 758). Upon remittal, the court denied defendant's request for suppression, and we now affirm. The court properly concluded that the police officer developed a founded suspicion based upon defendant's inability to produce a vehicle registration or driver's license or any form of identification, his nervous and fidgety behavior, and his suspicious answers regarding his destination ( see People v. McCarley, 55 A.D.3d 1396, 1396–1397, 865 N.Y.S.2d 459, lv. denied11 N.Y.3d 899, 873 N.Y.S.2d 275, 901 N.E.2d 769; see also People v. Garcia, 20 N.Y.3d 317, 322, 959 N.Y.S.2d 464, 983 N.E.2d 259; see generally People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 191–192, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619, 590 N.E.2d 204; People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562). We reject defendant's contention that the police officer's testimony was “ incredible” and “self-contradictory,” and we conclude that the court's credibility determinations are entitled to deference ( see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380; People v. Twillie, 28 A.D.3d 1236, 1237, 813 N.Y.S.2d 626, lv. denied7 N.Y.3d 795, 821 N.Y.S.2d 825, 854 N.E.2d 1290). Finally, we reject defendant's contention that the court exceeded the scope of the remittal order. The court was required to “make findings of fact essential to the determination” whether the police officer had the requisite founded suspicion (CPL 710.60[4] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.