| People v Louis |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06620 [99 AD3d 725] |
| October 3, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JeanLouis, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Michael J. Balchof counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Berkowitz,J.), rendered July 6, 2010, as amended January 18, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the firstdegree, burglary in the second degree (three counts), assault in the second degree, criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree, possession of burglar's tools, and criminal use of afirearm in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appealbrings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Grella, J.) pursuant to a stipulation in lieu ofmotions, of suppression of physical evidence and the defendant's statements to law enforcementofficials.
Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt on the charge of burglary in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt(see Penal Law § 140.30 [2]; cf. People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445 [2007]). Moreover, upon ourindependent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was notagainst the weight of the evidence (seePeople v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Contrary to the defendant'scontention, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish that the complainantsustained a "physical injury" within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) (see Peoplev Sloan, 202 AD2d 525 [1994]; cf.People v Phillips, 68 AD3d 1137 [2009]).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred by allowing the introduction ofevidence of prior uncharged crimes or bad acts (see generally People v Ventimiglia, 52NY2d 350 [1981]; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]) is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, any error was harmless, as there wasoverwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that the erroraffected the verdict (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]).
The hearing court properly denied suppression of the physical evidence recovered from thevehicle in which he was a passenger, as well as his statements to law enforcement officials.[*2]"The credibility determinations of a hearing court are entitled togreat deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" (People v Martinez, 58 AD3d 870,870-871 [2009]; see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Contrary to thedefendant's contention, there is no basis in the record to disturb the hearing court's credibilitydeterminations.
There is no merit to the defendant's remaining contention. Eng, P.J., Dillon, Dickerson andLeventhal, JJ., concur.