People v Ramos
2014 NY Slip Op 02852 [116 AD3d 618]
April 24, 2014
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 28, 2014


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Fernando Ramos, Appellant.

[*1]Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Harold V. Ferguson, Jr. ofcounsel), for appellant.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Rebecca L. Johannesen of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), rendered July23, 2010, as amended August 4, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robberyin the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weightof the evidence (see People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing thejury's determinations concerning identification and credibility. Notwithstanding anydeficiencies in the identification testimony, defendant was connected to the crime byother evidence. Among other things, the victim's watch was in defendant's immediateproximity at the time of his prompt apprehension, and there was no reasonable innocentexplanation for that circumstance (see generally People v Galbo, 218 NY 283,290 [1916]).

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Defendant's presentarguments are entirely unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest ofjustice. We note that the People were never placed on notice of any need to develop therecord (see People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029 [1980]; People v Tutt, 38NY2d 1011 [1976]) as to how, after losing sight of a person who fled from a carinvolved in the robbery, the pursuing officer determined that defendant was this person.As an alternative holding, we find that the hearing record, and [*2]reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, support theconclusion that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that defendant was thesame person he had just been chasing, and that the police conduct was lawful in allrespects. Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, 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.