| People v Cooley |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00827 [48 AD3d 1091] |
| February 1, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v MichaelCooley, Appellant. |
—[*1] Frank J. Clark, District Attorney, Buffalo (Raymond C. Herman of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.),rendered July 25, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [5] [ii]), defendantcontends that the handgun seized from a vehicle by the police should have been suppressed as theresult of his illegal detention. We reject that contention. Even assuming, arguendo, that thedetention of defendant prior to the observation and seizure of the handgun by the police wasunlawful, we conclude that Supreme Court properly refused to suppress the handgun becausedefendant's detention was not causally related to the subsequent seizure of the handgun (seePeople v Arnau, 58 NY2d 27, 32-34 [1982]; People v Rogers, 52 NY2d 527,532-533 [1981], rearg denied 54 NY2d 753 [1981], cert denied 454 US 898[1981], reh denied 459 US 898 [1982]).
Defendant further contends that reversal is required based on the court's failure to complywith CPL 310.30 in responding to the jury's requests for further information. The recordestablishes, however, that defendant was made aware of the content of the jury's requests forfurther information before the court responded to those requests. Because defendant neitherrequested the opportunity to suggest responses to those requests nor "lodge[d] any objection tothe manner of proceeding or to the substance of the court's responses," we conclude that he failedto preserve for our review both his contention that the court failed to comply with CPL 310.30and his further contention that he was deprived of the opportunity to suggest appropriateresponses to the jury's requests (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 514 [1995]; seePeople v DeRosario, 81 NY2d 801, 803 [1993]; cf. People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928,930-931 [1995]). Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that theprosecutor's stated reasons for striking a prospective juror in response to a Batsonchallenge were pretextual, inasmuch as he "failed to articulate to . . . Supreme Courtany reason why he believed that the prosecutor's explanations were pretextual" (People vSantiago, 272 AD2d 418 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 907 [2000]; see People vSmocum, 99 NY2d 418, 423-424 [2003]; People v Dandridge, 26 AD3d 779, 779-780 [2006]). We decline to[*2]exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter ofdiscretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Finally, we reject defendant'schallenges to the legality of the sentence (see Penal Law § 70.02 [1] [c]; [3] [c]),and to its severity. Present—Martoche, J.P., Centra, Lunn, Green and Gorski, JJ.