| People v Palmer |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04711 [84 AD3d 1414] |
| May 31, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v AriesPalmer, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, JeanetteLifschitz, and Michael Scheinkman of counsel; Andrew Dykens on the brief), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Braun, J.),rendered November 25, 2008, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and endangeringthe welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up forreview the denial, after a hearing (Demakos, J.), of those branches of the defendant's omnibusmotion which were to suppress identification testimony and statements made by him to lawenforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Seconds before receiving a radio broadcast of a robbery in progress, a police officer saw thedefendant and his accomplice sprinting down the sidewalk away from the site of the robbery,which was approximately two blocks away. After receiving a radio broadcast description of thealleged assailants, the police detained the defendant, who matched the description, and the victimidentified him as one of the assailants. The time from when the arresting officer first saw thedefendant until the officer detained him about four or five blocks away was approximately fiveminutes.
As an initial matter, the defendant's contention that the police lacked reasonable suspicion todetain him is preserved for appellant review because the Supreme Court "expressly decided" thatissue (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Edwards, 95 NY2d 486, 491 n 2 [2000]).
The police had reasonable suspicion to pursue, stop, and detain the defendant based upon"the contents of a police dispatcher's radio broadcast providing a general description of theperpetrator which matched the [defendant's appearance], the close proximity of the defendant tothe site of the crime, and the short passage of time between the commission of the crime and theobservation of the defendant" (People v Holland, 4 AD3d 375, 376 [2004]; seePeople v Hicks, 78 AD3d 1075, 1075-1076 [2010]; People v Mais, 71 AD3d 1163,1164 [2010]; People v Hines, 46 AD3d 912, 913 [2007]; People v Green, 10AD3d 664 [2004]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of thedefendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and statementsmade by him to law enforcement officials.[*2]
The defendant's remaining contentions, including thoseraised in his pro se supplemental brief, are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Belen, Sgroi and Miller,JJ., concur.