May 29, 2013
The People of the State of New York, respondent,
Rafael Lopez, appellant. Docket No. 05-00890
Gerald Zuckerman, Ossining, N.Y., for appellant.
Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco, Steven A. Bender, Richard Lognworth Hecht, and John Collins of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P. JOHN M. LEVENTHAL SANDRA L. SGROI ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered September 12, 2006, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second 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 his statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his inculpatory statements should have been suppressed because the Yonkers police officers who arrested him had no authority to arrest him in Massachusetts is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v Rogers, 34 A.D.3d 504; People v Catoe, 181 A.D.2d 905). In any event, his contention is without merit, as the Yonkers police officers were actively assisted in apprehending him by Massachusetts police officers (see People v Johnson, 303 A.D.2d 903, 905-906; People v Perea, 182 A.D.2d 718, 719; People v Wallace, 155 A.D.2d 708, 709-710).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15; People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, cert denied 542 U.S. 946; People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see CPL 470.15[c]; [b]; 470.20; People v Thompson, 60 N.Y.2d 513, 519; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur.