| People v Cowan |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01266 [92 AD3d 794] |
| February 14, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Francis Cowan, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Valerie A. Livingston, Laurie Sapakoff,and Lois Cullen Valerio of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Neary,J.), rendered February 11, 2009, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, ofthat branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to lawenforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly declined to suppresscertain statements he made to law enforcement officials on the ground that they were obtained inviolation of his right to counsel. Although the defendant was represented by an attorney inconnection with another burglary that took place in the Bronx at the time he made the statements,the law enforcement officials did not question the defendant about the Bronx burglary, and thetwo criminal matters were not "so closely related transactionally, or in space or time, thatquestioning on the unrepresented matter would all but inevitably elicit incriminating responsesregarding the matter in which there had been an entry of counsel" (People v Cohen, 90NY2d 632, 638 [1997]; see People vMadison, 22 AD3d 684, 686 [2005]; People v Rivera, 277 AD2d 470, 471-472[2000]).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding certain evidence ofthird-party culpability, as the evidence was purely speculative and would have caused unduedelay, prejudice, and confusion (seePeople v Cameron, 74 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2010]; People v Williams, 64 AD3d 734, 735 [2009], affd 16NY3d 480 [2011]; People v Decker,51 AD3d 686, 687 [2008], affd 13 NY3d 12 [2009]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Lott andMiller, JJ., concur.