| People v Chandler |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04718 [51 AD3d 941] |
| May 20, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v PaulChandler, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J.Caferri, and Kristina Sapaskis of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lewis, J.),rendered February 14, 2006, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts),attempted murder in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree (four counts),attempted robbery in the second degree, assault in the first degree (two counts), criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weaponin the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal bringsup for review the denial, without a hearing (Hanophy, J.), of that branch of the defendant'somnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing a videotape to beplayed for the jury and introducing a photograph of the crime scene. The videotape was relevantto establish the elements of the charge of murder in the second degree and to corroborate thewitnesses' testimony (see People v Hickok, 294 AD2d 928 [2002]; People vCruz, 249 AD2d 136, 137 [1998]), and the photograph was admitted to illustrate thetestimony of the detective with respect to the location of physical and ballistics evidence (seePeople v Acevedo, 221 AD2d 550 [1995]; People v Figueroa, 213 AD2d 669[1995]). Thus, the evidence was not shown solely to inflame the jury (see People vWood, 79 NY2d 958 [1992]; People v Stevens, 76 NY2d 833 [1990]; People vPobliner, 32 NY2d 356 [1973], cert denied 416 US 905 [1974]).[*2]
Contrary to the contention of the defendant, as set forth inhis supplemental pro se brief, that branch of his motion which was to suppress physical evidencewas properly denied without a hearing since his allegations were factually insufficient to supporthis claim that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him (see CPL 710.60 [3]; People v Long, 8 NY3d 1014[2007]; People v Bryant, 8 NY3d530 [2007]; People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415 [1993]; People v Jones, 270AD2d 500 [2000], affd 95 NY2d 721 [2001]; People v Milliner, 255 AD2d 460,461 [1998]; People v Holder, 198 AD2d 435, 436 [1993]). Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Engand Chambers, JJ., concur.