| People v Lightfoot |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 00557 [124 AD3d 802] |
| January 21, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jeffrey Lightfoot, Appellant. |
John F. Ryan, White Plains, N.Y. (Jacqueline F. Oliva of counsel), for appellant.
Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco andRichard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County(Neary, J.), rendered February 6, 2013, convicting him of assault in the second degree,obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, resisting arrest, criminalpossession of marijuana in the fifth degree, and unlawful possession of marijuana, upona jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after ahearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppressphysical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch ofhis omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence is without merit. Thetestimony adduced at the suppression hearing demonstrated that Police Officer StephenDonohue observed the defendant exit an apartment building in a high crime area wherethe police received many complaints of drug sales and drug use. Donohue knew fromprevious interactions with the defendant that he did not live in the building, and was alsoaware that the owner of the building had signed a letter permitting police to enter thepremises to arrest trespassers. When Donohue approached the defendant to ask him whyhe had been in the building, the defendant appeared "fidgety" and Donohue noticed "avery strong odor of marijuana coming from him." Contrary to the defendant's contention,Donohue had a "reasonable suspicion" that the defendant had committed, wascommitting, or was about to commit a crime, authorizing him to forcibly stop and detainthe defendant (People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]; see People vRoque, 99 NY2d 50, 54 [2002]; People v Velasquez, 217 AD2d 510, 512[1995]). The defendant's reliance on Donohue's trial testimony to challenge the hearingcourt's determination is improper, since he failed to move to reopen the suppressionhearing (see People vBowen-Allen, 97 AD3d 598, 599 [2012]; People v Riley, 79 AD3d 911, 912 [2010]; People v Fleming, 65 AD3d702, 703 [2009]).
The defendant's contention with respect to the charge of obstructing governmentaladministration is unpreserved for appellate review, and his remaining contentions arewithout merit. Eng, P.J., Mastro, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.