| People v Grier |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00286 [47 AD3d 729] |
| January 15, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v BillyGrier, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Valerie A. Livingston, RichardLongworth Hecht, and Anthony J. Servino of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Adler,J.), rendered May 12, 2006, convicting him of tampering with physical evidence, resisting arrest,criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and attempted assault in thethird degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review thedenial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppressphysical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony of the arresting officer was sufficient tosupport the hearing court's determination that there was probable cause for his arrest. "Under thefellow officer rule, a police officer can make a lawful arrest even without personal knowledgesufficient to establish probable cause, so long as the officer is acting upon the direction of or as aresult of communication with a fellow officer . . . in possession of informationsufficient to constitute probable cause for the arrest" (People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416,419 [1999] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the arresting officer's testimony establishedthat he received a radio transmission from a fellow officer indicating that the officer hadobserved the defendant in possession of crack cocaine. Since the arresting officer was entitled torely upon the information provided by his colleague, the arrest was lawful, and the hearing courtproperly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physicalevidence (id.; see People v Mims, 88 NY2d 99; People v Soviero, 5 AD3d 404 [2004]).[*2]
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court'sSandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) deprived him of afair trial is without merit. The court properly weighed the probative value of the defendant's prioroffenses on the issue of his credibility against the possible prejudice to the defendant, andreached an appropriate compromise ruling (see People v Gray, 84 NY2d 709 [1995]; People v Lopez, 37 AD3d 496[2007]; People v Taylor, 18 AD3d783 [2005]).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt of tamperingwith physical evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that itwas legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of this crime beyond a reasonable doubt(see Penal Law § 215.40 [2]). Ritter, J.P., Florio, Miller and Dillon, JJ., concur.