| People v Levy |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06447 [65 AD3d 1057] |
| September 8, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Mordekhay Levy, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Gary Fidel,and Edward D. Saslaw of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Cooperman, J.), rendered October 27, 2008, convicting him of trademark counterfeiting in thesecond degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings upfor review the denial, without a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motionwhich were to suppress physical evidence seized pursuant to two search warrants.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence seized from his warehouse following the executionof a search warrant in 2005 should have been suppressed, since the affidavit of a police detectivein support of the warrant failed to establish probable cause for its issuance. He further contendsthat a second search warrant, issued in 2006, also was defective because it was premised in parton information derived from the purportedly unconstitutional search conducted in 2005.Contrary to these contentions, the affidavit of the police detective in support of the 2005 searchwarrant application was sufficient to support a reasonable belief that evidence of illegal activitywould be present at the premises to be searched (see People v Watts, 58 AD3d 647 [2009]; People v Fricchione, 20 AD3d433 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of thedefendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to thewarrants.
Similarly unavailing is the defendant's contention that the trial court failed to adequatelyinstruct the jury with regard to the charged offenses. The charge closely followed the language ofthe New York Criminal Jury Instructions and, considered in its entirety, properly conveyed to thejury the correct principles to be applied in evaluating the evidence before it (see People vSamuels, 99 NY2d 20, 25-26 [2002]; People v Stallings, 54 AD3d 1064 [2008]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt of trademark counterfeiting in the second degree (Penal Law § 165.72)beyond a reasonable doubt.[*2]
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.Mastro, J.P., Eng, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.