S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Samuel E.
Steinbock-Pratt of counsel), for appellant.
R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Eleanor J. Ostrow
of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Feinman, Gesmer, JJ.
Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa C. Jackson, J. at
Darden hearing; Richard D. Carruthers, J. at
pretrial proceedings, jury trial and sentencing), rendered
November 10, 2014, convicting defendant of criminal
possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth
degrees and two counts of criminally using drug paraphernalia
in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony
drug offender, to an aggregate term of two years, unanimously
verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see
People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349 ). There
is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility
determinations. There was ample evidence to connect defendant
with the contraband found.
defendant requested unspecified "paperwork"
concerning an unrelated search warrant executed by the same
team of officers on the day they executed the warrant that
led to defendant's arrest, this request was insufficient
to alert the court to defendant's present claim that he
was entitled to these documents as Rosario material
(People v Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286');">9 N.Y.2d 286 , cert
denied 368 U.S. 866');">368 U.S. 866 ). We decline to review this
unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. As an
alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. Assuming
that the undisclosed materials included any statements by a
witness who testified at defendant's trial, there is
nothing to indicate that these statements concerning the
other search warrant would have "relate[d] to the
subject matter of the witness's testimony" (CPL
240.45; People v Mack, 100 A.D.3d 460');">100 A.D.3d 460 [1st Dept
2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 1012');">20 N.Y.3d 1012 ).
Miranda warnings nor CPL 710.30(1)(a) notice was
required with respect to defendant's statement, in
response to a detective's pedigree question, that his
residence was the apartment where the police had executed a
search warrant and discovered contraband. The detective's
routine administrative questioning was not designed to elicit
an incriminating response (see Pennsylvania v Muniz,
496 U.S. 582, 601-602 ; People v Rodney, 85
N.Y.2d 289, 292-294 ; People v Watts, 309
A.D.2d 628 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 1 N.Y.3d 582');">1 N.Y.3d 582
), even if the answer was reasonably likely to be
incriminating (see People v Alleyne, 34 A.D.3d 367');">34 A.D.3d 367
, lv denied 8 N.Y.3d 918');">8 N.Y.3d 918 , cert
denied 552 U.S. 878');">552 U.S. 878 ).
court did not delegate control of a portion of jury selection
to a court officer, and there was no mode of proceedings
error. When the officer reported to the court and parties
that a prospective juror was pacing in the hallway and making
rambling, belligerent remarks, the court, without objection,
directed that the panelist be excused. The officer did not
perform any judicial function, but "simply supplied
information upon which the court made its own
determination" (People v Singletary, 66 A.D.3d
564, 566 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 N.Y.3d 941');">13 N.Y.3d 941
) that the panelist was unqualified to serve, and the
circumstances did not require a direct colloquy between the
panelist and the court.
on our review of the minutes of the hearing conducted
pursuant to People v Darden (34 N.Y.2d 177');">34 N.Y.2d 177 ),
we find that there was ...