| People v Caponigro |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06704 [76 AD3d 913] |
| September 28, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Anthony Caponigro, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Mary C. Farrington of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J., at suppression hearing;Bonnie G. Wittner, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 28, 2006, convictingdefendant of attempted assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in thesecond and third degrees, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of six years, unanimouslyaffirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. At the scene of a shooting, thepolice spoke with bystanders who said the assailant drove away and provided a detaileddescription of the car. Another officer heard this information over the radio and saw defendantstopped at a red light in a car that precisely matched the description, around the corner from thecrime scene. The distinctiveness of the car, viewed in light of its close geographic and temporalproximity to the crime, made it very likely that it was the car involved in the shooting (seee.g. People v Dearmas, 48AD3d 1226, 1227 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 839 [2008]). These factors, whencombined with the violent nature of the crime and defendant's furtive and uncooperative behaviorwhen the officer approached to make an inquiry, provided reasonable suspicion that defendantwas involved in the shooting and posed a danger to the officer. Accordingly, the officer properlyordered defendant out of the car (see generally People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470, 476[1982]). As defendant opened the car door, the officer saw a firearm on the floor and lawfullyarrested defendant. Defendant did not preserve his challenge to the reliability of the informationprovided by the unidentified bystanders, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Asan alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits (see People v Appice, 1 AD3d 244 [2003], lv denied 1NY3d 594 [2004]).
Defendant's challenge to certain evidence elicited at trial is unpreserved and we decline toreview it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal.Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Acosta, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.