The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >The People of the State of New York v. Evency St. Preux
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

The People of the State of New York v. Evency St. Preux

1 citation

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J...

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J...

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered November 14, 2002, convicting him *492of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence recovered from his automobile at the time of his arrest. The factual findings and 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 Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; People v Crider, 301 AD2d 612, 614 [2003]). The record clearly supports the hearing court’s determination denying suppression because the police had probable cause to search the defendant’s automobile (see People v Galak, 81 NY2d 463 [1993]; People v Blasich, 73 NY2d 673 [1989]; People v Ellis, 62 NY2d 393 [1984]; People v Langen, 60 NY2d 170 [1983], cert denied 465 US 1028 [1984]; People v Belton, 55 NY2d 49 [1982]). In light of the foregoing, we do not address the propriety of the hearing court’s alternative conclusion that the search was proper as incident to the defendant’s arrest. Prudenti, P.J., Krausman, Adams and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap