| People v Bell |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06037 [86 AD3d 618] |
| July 19, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Tysean Bell, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubortof counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mullen, J.),rendered March 23, 2009, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial,after a hearing (Brennan, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was tosuppress his statements to law enforcement officials and identification testimony.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the police failed to establish probable cause for his arrest onthe ground that the arresting officers did not testify at the suppression hearing was improperlyraised for the first time on the defendant's motion for leave to reargue his omnibus motion(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Cherry, 302 AD2d 472 [2003]). In any event,contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony of the detective who investigated the casewas sufficient to support the hearing court's determination that there was probable cause for hisarrest. Although the arresting officers did not testify, the hearing court properly inferred that theyacted at the direction of the testifying detective, who had knowledge sufficient to establishprobable cause (see People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 113-114 [1996]; People v Rumble, 60 AD3d 791[2009]; People v Walker, 25 AD3d504 [2006]; see also People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416, 421 [1999]).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence corroborating hisconfession, as required by CPL 60.50, is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL470.05 [2]; People v Monroe, 49AD3d 900, 900-901 [2008]). In any event, the defendant's confession was sufficientlycorroborated by independent evidence (see CPL 60.50; People v Booden, 69NY2d 185, 187-188 [1987]). The defendant's related contention that the trial court's failure tocharge the jury in accordance with CPL 60.50 constituted reversible error is unpreserved forappellate review since the defendant never requested such a charge, and, in any event, any errorwas harmless (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Monroe, 49 AD3d at 901; Peoplev Rutledge, 286 AD2d 962 [2001]; People v Coombs, 184 AD2d 651, 652 [1992]).[*2]
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, 410 [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]). Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.