SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
August 1, 2011
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
CARLOS STUART, APPELLANT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Alexander B. Jeong, J.), rendered October 1, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, after a non-jury trial, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree.
People v Stuart (Carlos)
Appellate Term, Second 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 1, 2011
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and STEINHARDT, JJ
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant "operate[d] a motor vehicle upon a public highway while knowing or having reason to know that [his] license or privilege of operating such motor vehicle in this state or privilege of obtaining a license to operate such motor vehicle issued by the commissioner [was] suspended, revoked or otherwise withdrawn by the commissioner" (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511  [a]). The testimony of a police officer regarding defendant's operation of a motor vehicle and the suspended status of defendant's driver's license or driving privileges, together with the documentary evidence, was sufficient to establish that defendant drove his vehicle while knowing or having reason to know that his driver's license, or driving privileges, had been suspended (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 214; People v Altmann, 14 Misc 3d 143[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50382[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]).
Moreover, at trial, defendant failed to object to the admission of any document into evidence on the ground that he was deprived of his Due Process right to confront witnesses against him (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 ; see also Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts, 557 US , 129 S Ct 2527 ). Consequently, defendant failed to preserve this constitutional claim for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 ; People v Kello, 96 NY2d 740, 743-744 ; People v Reid, 71 AD3d 699 ; People v Bridgers, 28 Misc 3d 129[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51243[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]; People v Schindler, 27 Misc 3d 127[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50578[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]; People v Baker, 14 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 ).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 01, 2011
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.