| People v Canty |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07570 [55 AD3d 330] |
| October 7, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v DavidCanty, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Aaron Ginandes of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Philip M. Grella, J., at hearing; Arlene R.Silverman, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered December 3, 2004 convicting defendant ofcriminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as asecond felony offender, to a term of 3½ to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbingthe court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People vProchilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The evidence established that the officer saw defendantdrinking from what the officer recognized as a beer bottle, in a public place, in violation of theOpen Container Law (Administrative Code of City of NY § 10-125 [b]). When defendantfled, the police were entitled to pursue and arrest him (see People v Neely, 18 AD3d 394 [2005], lv denied 5NY3d 808 [2005]; People vDelgado, 4 AD3d 310 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 798 [2004]). Defendant'sremaining suppression arguments are without merit.
The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a properexercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]). The court permittedonly a limited inquiry into defendant's extensive record. The probative value of his prior drugconviction, on the issue of credibility, outweighed any prejudicial effect.
Defendant did not preserve his claim that the verdict was based on legally insufficientevidence, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, wereject that argument on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the[*2]evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is nobasis, apart from speculation, to reject the testimony of the People's expert regarding the quantityof drugs that defendant possessed. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Sweeny, Cattersonand DeGrasse, JJ.