People v Cartwright
2009 NY Slip Op 06724 [65 AD3d 973]
September 29, 2009
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, November 4, 2009


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
KeithCartwright, Appellant.

[*1]Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Robin Nichinsky ofcounsel), for appellant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Sara M. Zausmerof counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered November21, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in thesecond degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, andsentencing him to an aggregate term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion without a hearing, since hismotion papers did not raise an issue of fact as to probable cause for his arrest (see People vMendoza, 82 NY2d 415 [1993]). Defendant's assertion that he was "committing no visiblecrime" at the time of his confrontation with police did not controvert the specific informationthat was provided by the People concerning the basis for the arrest. In discovery materials thatincluded a bill of particulars, the People set forth a detailed account of the chain of eventsleading up to defendant's arrest, including both a complaint by a civilian informant andobservations made by the police. Defendant did not address these allegations, assert any basis forsuppression, or raise a factual dispute requiring a hearing (see People v Jones, 95 NY2d721, 728-729 [2001]).

The court properly admitted testimony regarding the contents of a 911 call, accompanied bythorough limiting instructions. The evidence was not received for its truth, but for the legitimatenonhearsay purpose of completing the narrative, explaining police conduct, and "prevent[ing]undue speculation and unfair inferences by the jury." (People v Barnes, 57 AD3d 289, 290 [2008], lv denied 12NY3d 781 [2009].) Defendant's remaining challenges to this [*2]evidence, including his Confrontation Clause claim, areunpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding,we also reject them on the merits. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Renwickand Richter, JJ.


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.