| People v Nichols |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08396 [89 AD3d 1503] |
| November 18, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carl Nichols,Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas E. Moran, District Attorney, Geneseo (Eric R. Schiener of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Robert B. Wiggins, J.), rendered June 3,2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of grand larceny in the third degree,criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree (twocounts) and reckless endangerment in the second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia,grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law former § 155.35) and criminal possession of stolenproperty in the third degree (§ 165.50). We reject defendant's contention that County Courterred in refusing to suppress an in-court identification of defendant based on an unduly suggestive photoarray identification procedure. The People met their burden of establishing the reasonableness of thepolice conduct in conducting the identification procedure in question, and defendant failed to meet hisburden of proving that the procedure was unduly suggestive (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
Defendant failed to renew his motion for a trial order of dismissal after presenting evidence, andthus he failed to preserve for our review his contention that the conviction is not supported by legallysufficient evidence (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], rearg denied 97NY2d 678 [2001]; People v Pearson,26 AD3d 783 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 851 [2006]). In any event, that contention iswithout merit (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).Present—Smith, J.P., Carni, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.