Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People of the State of New York v. Hector Acevedo

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT


June 10, 2011

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
RESPONDENT,
v.
HECTOR ACEVEDO,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (James M. Burke, J.), rendered March 12, 2009, after a non-jury trial, convicting him of criminal trespass in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per curiam.

People v Acevedo (Hector)

Appellate Term, First Department

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

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 10, 2011

PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ

Judgment of conviction (James M. Burke, J.), rendered March 12, 2009, affirmed.

Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied, as "[t]here is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record" (People v Dozier, 12 Misc 3d 128[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50926[U] [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 812 [2006]). When the officer observed defendant in a drug-prone building, the officer "had an objective credible reason' to ask defendant whether he lived there, which constituted a level one request for information and not a common-law inquiry" (People v Tinort, 272 AD2d 206 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 872 [2000], quoting People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 190 [1992]; see People v Greene, 271 AD2d 235, 236 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 853 [2000]). Defendant thereafter provided the officers with probable cause to arrest him for criminal trespass by claiming to have been visiting a friend on the tenth floor, without being able to provide an apartment number, and furnishing other information which could not be verified by the officer (see People v Williams, 16 AD3d 151, 151-152 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 771 [2005]; People v Magwood, 260 AD2d 246 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1004 [1999]; People v Rodriguez, 159 AD2d 201, 202-203 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 742 [1990]).

Defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's alleged misstatements of law and inflammatory comments during summation is unpreserved for appellate review, as defendant failed to object to those remarks at the trial (see People v James, 72 AD3d 844, 845 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 752 [2010]; People v Boyce, 54 AD3d 1052, 1053 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 781 [2009]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, "none of the cited comments exceeded the broad latitude accorded on summation" (People v Santiago, 75 AD3d 163, 166 [2010]; see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Philbert, 60 AD3d 698, lv denied 12 NY3d 919 [2009]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Decision Date: June 10, 2011

20110610

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.