People v. ParkPeople v. Park
The defendant contends that his statements to the police should have been suppressed. However, the credibility determinations of a hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Jenneman, 37 AD3d 736 [2007]). Here,
The defendant‘s contention that the record developed at the Huntley hearing (see People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965]) established that his statements were the product of an illegal arrest is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Garcia, 284 AD2d 106 [2001]). In any event, the defendant‘s request for a Dunaway hearing (see Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1979]) was properly denied since his supporting papers were conclusory and failed to set forth factual allegations sufficient to warrant such a hearing (see People v Scott, 182 AD2d 649 [1992]). “‘It was this ruling by the hearing court and not a failure of proof by the People that resulted in evidence of the legality of the [arrest] remaining undeveloped‘” (People v Fountaine, 269 AD2d 748 [2000], quoting People v Giles, 73 NY2d 666, 671 [1989]). This Court may not rely upon the record of the Huntley hearing to decide the merits of the unlitigated ground for suppression raised in the defendant‘s omnibus motion (see People v Fountaine, supra).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Skelos and McCarthy, JJ., concur.