| People v Preston |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07082 [88 AD3d 748] |
| October 4, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JamesPreston, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C.Abbot, and Danielle S. Fenn of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lewis, J.),rendered June 1, 2009, as amended June 29, 2009, convicting him of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree (four counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree(three counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon ajury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing(Aloise, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physicalevidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant's contention that certain physicalevidence should have been suppressed because two police officers lacked a proper basis forquestioning him is without merit (seePeople v Riddick, 70 AD3d 1421, 1422 [2010]; People v Winchester, 14 AD3d 939, 940 [2005]).
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's remaining arguments regarding thepropriety of the two police officers' actions leading up to his arrest are properly before this Court(see People v Gray, 77 AD3d766 [2010]), although those contentions are without merit. Notwithstanding the defendant'scontention that the officers chased him even though they lacked a "reasonable suspicion that [he]was involved in a felony or misdemeanor" (People v Moore, 6 NY3d 496, 499 [2006]), the testimony adducedat the suppression hearing reflects that the officers' pursuit of the defendant after he dropped whatappeared to be a drug packet and fled their presence immediately thereafter [*2]was justified (see People v Febus, 11 AD3d 554, 556 [2004]; Matter ofSteven McC., 304 AD2d 68, 73 [2003]). Moreover, the record does not support thedefendant's contention that the officers' testimony at the suppression hearing was incredible orpatently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see People v Vasquez, 217 AD2d466, 467 [1995]; cf. People vRutledge, 21 AD3d 1125, 1126 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properlydenied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
The defendant's contention that he was penalized for going to trial rather than accepting aplea offer is without merit (see People vDavis, 27 AD3d 761, 762 [2006]; People v Evans, 16 AD3d 595, 596 [2005]). Additionally, thesentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera,J.P., Balkin, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.