Submitted - November 13, 2017
Diamond, New York, NY, for appellant.
P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, NY (Itamar J. Yeger
of counsel), for respondent.
PRISCILLA HALL, J.P. SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX JOSEPH J. MALTESE
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court,
Rockland County (William A. Kelly, J.), rendered June 4,
2015, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and
criminal possession of an anti-security item, 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
statements he made to law enforcement officials.
that the judgment is affirmed.
defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the
evidence to support his conviction of robbery in the third
degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL
470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492). In
any event, 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 of that crime (see People v
Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349). Moreover, in fulfilling
our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the
weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15; People
vDanielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342), we are satisfied that the
verdict of guilt of that crime was not against the weight of
the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633).
to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly
denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to
suppress statements he made to law enforcement officials. The
defendant was not in custody at the time that he made the
first two sets of challenged statements (seePeople v
Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585; People v Gelin, 128 A.D.3d
717; People vReardon, 124 A.D.3d 681; People v
Gore, 117 A.D.3d 845, 845-846; People v Martin,
68 A.D.3d 1015). The third challenged statement, made while
the defendant was in custody but prior to the administration
of Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona,
384 U.S. 436), was spontaneous, and not triggered by any
police questioning or other conduct which reasonably could
have been expected to elicit a declaration from him (see
People v Goldson, 136 A.D.3d 1053, 1054; People
vBarley, 82 A.D.3d 996, 996; People v
Henderson, 57 A.D.3d 562).
defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's jury
instructions diminished the People's burden of proof is
unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05). In any
event, the jury instructions, taken as a whole, conveyed the
correct standard (see People v Medina, 18 N.Y.3d 98;
People v Fields, 87 N.Y.2d 821; People v
Hankerson, 149 A.D.3d 778; People v King, 73
A.D.3d 1083). Since the instructions were adequate, defense
counsel's failure to object to the court's charge did
not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see
People v Hankerson, 149 A.D.3d 778).
defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right
to present a defense by the Supreme Court's curtailment
of his cross-examination of a prosecution witness is also
unpreserved for appellate review (see People v
Valdez-Cruz, 99 A.D.3d 738). In any event, this
contention is without merit (see People v Hudy, 73
N.Y.2d 40, 56; People v Cruz, 131 A.D.3d 706, 707).
defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
JP, HINDS-RADIX, MALTESE and ...