| People v High |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05557 [119 AD3d 959] |
| July 30, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| 1 The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lawton High, Appellant. |
Jillian S. Harrington, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and JosephMogelnicki of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Berkowitz, J.), rendered September 20, 2012, convicting him of burglary in the seconddegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review thedenial, after a hearing pursuant to a stipulation in lieu of motions (Grella, J.), of thesuppression of the defendant's statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied thesuppression of his statements to law enforcement officials as the fruit of an illegal arrest.The evidence at the hearing demonstrated that the complainant identified the defendantas one of the intruders he saw leaving his stepson's house, and that the police observedthe defendant throw a bag into bushes near the house. When the police retrieved the bag,they discovered that it was filled with copper piping. This evidence established that, onthe date of the incident, the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see People v Mendoza, 49AD3d 559, 560 [2008];People v Nealy, 32 AD3d 400, 401 [2006]; see generally People v Wright, 8 AD3d 304, 306-307[2004]), and therefore, probable cause existed when the complainant later cooperatedwith law enforcement in the apprehension and prosecution of the defendant (seePeople v Garcia, 284 AD2d 479, 480 [2001]).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the legalsufficiency of the evidence (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable tothe prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it waslegally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of burglary in the second degreebeyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct anindependent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunityto view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495[1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was notagainst the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
[*2] Since the defendant's conviction was supported bylegally sufficient evidence, the defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, whichis based solely upon his counsel's failure to preserve his legal insufficiency contention, iswithout merit (see People vAcevedo, 44 AD3d 168, 173 [2007]; see also People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152, 155-156[2005]). Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Dickerson and Cohen, JJ., concur.