| People v Gonzalez |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07127 [88 AD3d 480] |
| October 11, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Freddie Gonzalez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Yuval Simchi-Levi of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered September 17,2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and criminalpossession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of sevenyears, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. This Court has conducted an incamera review of the minutes of the hearing conducted pursuant to People v Darden (34NY2d 177 [1974]). After reviewing those minutes and all of the arguments raised by defendanton appeal, we find no basis for suppression.
Defendant did not preserve his claim that the Darden procedure for ex parteexaminations should be confined to cases involving warrants, and we decline to review it in theinterest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. We note that theDarden case itself involves a warrantless arrest.
We adhere to our prior decision in which we denied defendant's motion for disclosure of thesealed hearing minutes and related relief (People v Gonzalez, 2010 NY Slip Op83545[U] [2010]).
The court properly received evidence that defendant possessed a knife at the time of hisarrest one week after the robbery. The victim testified that the knife resembled the knife used inthe robbery. Accordingly, the knife was clearly relevant (see e.g. People v DelVermo, 192 NY 470, 481-482 [1908]; People v Pimental, 48 AD3d 321 [2008], lv denied 10NY3d 843 [2008]). Defendant did not preserve his argument that the knife should have beenexcluded as evidence of an uncharged crime, or his assertion that the prosecutor's summationraised a propensity argument, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As analternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman,Catterson, Moskowitz and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.