Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Nathaniel Williams, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1989-10-16
Citations: 154 A.D.2d 564
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nathaniel Williams, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 154
Pages: 564–565

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nathaniel Williams, Appellant.

Opinion:
— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Corriere, J.), rendered July 9, 1987, convicting him of 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.
We reject the defendant's contention that the hearing court erred in denying his motion to suppress six .22 caliber rounds of ammunition found on his person subsequent to his arrest. The arresting officer testified that after arriving on the scene in response to a radio call concerning a shooting, and examining the victim, he heard an unidentified individual tell another officer that a person among the group then exiting the building was in possession of a gun. The arresting officer then observed the defendant reach into his front waistband, remove a revolver and toss it away. Contrary to the defendant's assertion, this testimony was not inherently improbable or incredible as a matter of law and we decline to disturb the suppression court's finding that the officer's testimony was credible (cf., People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759; see, People v Africk, 107 AD2d 700; People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Kooper, J. P., Spatt, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.