| People v Sorrentino |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01733 [93 AD3d 450] |
| March 8, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Nicholas Sorrentino, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Martin J. Foncello of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered July 17, 2009,convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to aterm of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the fruits of an allegedly unlawfularrest. Defendant contends that New York police officers arrested him in New Jersey withoutstatutory authorization, and in any event without following statutory procedures concerningarrests made in New Jersey by out-of-state officers. However, there is no basis for disturbing thehearing court's factual determination that, rather than being arrested in New Jersey, defendantvoluntarily agreed to accompany the officers to New York for an interview in connection with anongoing investigation (see People v Morales, 42 NY2d 129, 137-138 [1977], certdenied 434 US 1018 [1978]; Peoplev Ortiz, 59 AD3d 350, 351 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 857 [2009]). The policedid not engage in any conduct that could be considered an arrest until they arrived in New York.Furthermore, the hearing court also correctly determined that even assuming there was aviolation of the statutory guidelines for interstate arrests, it would not warrant suppression of anyevidence (see People v Sampson, 73 NY2d 908 [1989]).
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress historical cell site locationinformation for calls made over his cell phone. The People properly obtained these records bycourt order under 18 USC § 2703 (d), and there was no violation of the Federal or StateConstitutions (see People v Hall, 86AD3d 450, 451 [2011]). In any event, the record also supports the court's finding of probablecause (see generally Brinegar v United States, 338 US 160, 175 [1949]; People vBigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]). Thus, given the People's evidentiary showing, the orderwas effectively a warrant.
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's mistrial motion made afterthe medical examiner made a brief reference to opinion expressed by his colleagues. Theoffending testimony consisted, essentially, of a single use of the word "We" instead of "I." Thecourt's proposed curative instruction would have sufficed, but defendant declined that remedy,insisting only on the unwarranted remedy of a mistrial (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d865 [1981]; People v Young, 48 NY2d 995 [1980]). In any event, the challengedtestimony could not [*2]have caused any prejudice given theoverwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.
The court providently exercised its discretion in admitting the deceased's statements to hisfriends about his deteriorating relationship with defendant, including his intention to terminatethe relationship and stay away from defendant (see e.g. People v Kimes, 37 AD3d 1, 17-19 [2006], lvdenied 8 NY3d 881 [2007]; People v Bierenbaum, 301 AD2d 119, 144-146 [2002],lv denied 99 NY2d 626 [2003], cert denied 540 US 821 [2003]; People vMartinez, 257 AD2d 410, 411 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 876 [1999]). In any event,any error was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims. Concur—Saxe, J.P.,Sweeny, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.