| People v Maxis |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03478 [50 AD3d 922] |
| April 15, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v HancyMaxis, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Lori Glachman ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest,J.), rendered May 21, 2002, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of thosebranches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and hisstatement to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that certain physical evidence and his statement to law enforcementofficials should have been suppressed as the result of a warrantless search of his apartment andthe backyard of the apartment building. However, the specific arguments asserted by thedefendant on appeal are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Valverde, 13 AD3d 658,659 [2004]; People v Toellner, 299 AD2d 567 [2002]). Moreover, the defendant may notrely upon trial testimony to challenge a suppression issue where, as here, he failed to request areopening of the suppression hearing (see People v Rice, 39 AD3d 567, 568 [2007]; People v Facey, 22 AD3d 765, 766[2005]).
Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied the effectiveassistance of counsel (see People vTurner, 5 NY3d 476, 480 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712[1998]).
The trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying a continuance of the sentencingproceeding, as the requested continuance was, by defense counsel's own admission, based [*2]on speculative thirdhand information (cf. People v Fisher,266 AD2d 308, 309 [1999]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Ritter, Dillon andMcCarthy, JJ., concur.