People v Bryant
2012 NY Slip Op 00466 [91 AD3d 558]
Jnury 26, 2012
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 29, 2012


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Rickey Bryant, Appellant.

[*1]Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Thomas M.Nosewicz of counsel), for appellant.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Rither Alabre of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Albert Lorenzo, J., at hearing; Analisa Torres, J.,at jury trial and sentencing), rendered August 11, 2009, convicting defendant of robbery in thefirst degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and two counts of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to an aggregateterm of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Upon defendant's lawful arrest atthe door of his apartment, the police properly conducted a limited protective sweep of theapartment to determine if there was anyone present who might destroy evidence or pose a threatto the officers (see Maryland v Buie, 494 US 325, 334 [1990]). The robbery victim hadprovided information warranting a reasonable belief that other participants in the robbery mightbe present in the apartment. The record supports the hearing court's finding that the recovery ofincriminating evidence from a partly open closet was justified under the plain view doctrine, andwas within the scope of the protective sweep (see People v Lasso-Reina, 305 AD2d 121,122 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 595 [2003]).

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is nobasis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility, including its resolution ofinconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

The court properly denied defendant's request for a missing witness charge, since [*2]defendant failed to meet his burden of showing that the uncalledwitness would have provided material, noncumulative testimony (see People v Brunner, 67 AD3d464, 465 [2009], affd 16 NY3d 820 [2011]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe,Catterson, Acosta and RomÁn, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.