| People v Ceruti |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 07987 [133 AD3d 610] |
| November 4, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Timothy Ceruti, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (A. Alexander Donn of counsel), forappellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, Merri Turk Lasky, and Mariana Zelig of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Knopf, J.), rendered July 5, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (twocounts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of thedefendant's motion to suppress physical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
During the early morning of November 11, 2009, two people were robbed atgunpoint by two men near the intersection of 19th Street and 21st Avenue in Queens.After the completion of the robberies, the two perpetrators were picked up by a vehiclewhich then fled the scene. Shortly thereafter, the defendant, who was driving a vehiclematching the description of the getaway vehicle, was arrested.
The hearing court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress physicalevidence taken from the vehicle. Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the police hadreasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle that he was driving based upon a radiotransmission indicating, inter alia, the make and color of the vehicle allegedly involved inthe robbery (see People vArgyris, 99 AD3d 808, 809 [2012], affd 24 NY3d 1138 [2014]; People v Castillo, 91 AD3d883 [2012]; People v Bianchi, 208 AD2d 551 [1994], affd 85 NY2d1022 [1995]). Moreover, the police stopped the vehicle in close geographical andtemporal proximity to the crime, as the stop occurred less than 20 minutes after therobberies, only minutes after receiving the initial radio transmission, and only about onemile from the location of the robberies (see People v Bianchi, 208 AD2d at 552;People v Brooks, 125 AD2d 481 [1986]; People v Rivera, 124 AD2d 682[1986]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that theevidence was legally sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt(see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]). Moreover, upon ourindependent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guiltwas not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Dillon, J.P.,Sgroi, Cohen and LaSalle, JJ., concur.