| People v Monk |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03482 [50 AD3d 925] |
| April 15, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Terrance Monk, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger and ArgiroKosmetatos of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.),rendered November 15, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the seconddegree, and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appealbrings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motionwhich was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
In his pretrial omnibus motion, the defendant sought, inter alia, to suppress his confession,arguing that it was the fruit of an illegal arrest. We agree that the arrest was unlawful (seePayton v New York, 445 US 573, 576 [1980]; People v Levan, 62 NY2d 139, 144[1984]). However, under the circumstances of this case, there was sufficient attenuation betweenthe unlawful arrest and the confession to remove the taint of illegality from the confession(see People v Rogers, 52 NY2d 527, 533 [1981], cert denied 454 US 898 [1981];People v Padilla, 28 AD3d 236,237 [2006]; People v Cooke, 299 AD2d 419, 420 [2002]; People v O'Brien, 178AD2d 617, 618 [1991]).
The defendant received meaningful representation from defense counsel at every stage of theproceedings (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54NY2d 137 [1981]).
In making its Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]),the court [*2]engaged in a proper balancing between the probativevalue of the prior acts and convictions and the risk of prejudice to the defendant (id.).
As to the admission into evidence of the defendant's false alibi, because this evidence ofconsciousness of guilt was "supported by other proof of a truly substantial character," it was notunduly prejudicial (People v Hernandez, 118 AD2d 729 [1986] [internal quotation marksand citation omitted]; see People v Benzinger, 36 NY2d 29, 33-34 [1974]; People vLeyra, 1 NY2d 199, 210 [1956]; People v Loliscio, 187 AD2d 172, 176 [1993];People v Shaw, 111 AD2d 415, 416 [1985]).
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's application for thecourt to recuse itself. "Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a TrialJudge is the sole arbiter of recusal" (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 406 [1987]).
The issues raised in the defendant's supplemental pro se brief do not require reversal. Skelos,J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur.