People v Johnson
2009 NY Slip Op 01669
Decided on March 3, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on March 3, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
MARK C. DILLON
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO
RANDALL T. ENG, JJ.

1999-10421
(Ind. No. 1968/97)

[*1]The People, etc., respondent,

v

Bernard Johnson, appellant.





Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Allen Fallek of counsel), for
appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John
M. Castellano, Sharon Y. Brodt, and
Roni Piplani of counsel), for
respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (DeMakos, J.), rendered October 21, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (three counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Latella, J., on decision; O'Dwyer, J., at hearing), of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress identification evidence, physical evidence, and his statements to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him because the identified citizen informant who furnished the information leading to his arrest was apparently in police custody and thus unreliable as a matter of law is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]).

The defendant's contention that a portion of the Supreme Court's charge constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Miller, 235 AD2d 568, 570). Further, under the circumstances of this case, there was no mode-of-proceedings error with respect to the court's charge that would exempt the defendant's argument from preservation requirements (see People v Brown, [*2]7 NY3d 880, 881; People v Agramonte, 87 NY2d 765, 769-770; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 21; People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288, 295; People v Bonilla, 51 AD3d 585, 585-586).
SKELOS, J.P., DILLON, ANGIOLILLO and ENG, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.