| People v Thorne |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02820 [61 AD3d 708] |
| April 7, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Stephen Thorne, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Margaret E. Mainusch and Laurie K.Gibbons of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kase, J.),rendered November 15, 2006, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in thefourth degree (seven counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, andpossession of burglar's tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings upfor review the denial, after a hearing (Donnino, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibusmotion which was to suppress physical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly determined, inter alia, that there was probable cause to arrest thedefendant and search a vehicle the defendant was near (see People v Galak, 81 NY2d463, 466-467 [1993]; People v Blasich, 73 NY2d 673, 677-678 [1989]; People vBelton, 55 NY2d 49, 54-55 [1982]). Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied thatbranch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidencerecovered from the vehicle.
The trial court properly denied the defendant's request to charge criminal possession ofstolen property in the fifth degree as a lesser-included offense of criminal possession of stolenproperty in the fourth degree. Contrary to the defendant's contention, viewing the evidence in thelight most favorable to him (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), noreasonable view of the evidence supported a finding [*2]that hecommitted the lesser offense but not the greater (see CPL 300.50 [1]; cf. PenalLaw § 165.45 [2]; People v Powers, 262 AD2d 713, 717 [1999]; People vPeterson, 216 AD2d 10 [1995]; People v Johnson, 214 AD2d 478 [1995]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes,60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant'sguilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct anindependent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342[2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses,hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004],cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against theweight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Florio, Covello andEng, JJ., concur.