| People v Frederique |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 02106 [137 AD3d 1161] |
| March 23, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Cleasin Frederique, Appellant. |
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Edward D. Saslaw andRobert J. Masters of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Blumenfeld, J.), rendered December 24, 2012, convicting him of grand larceny in thethird degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for reviewthe denial (Modica, J.), after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motionwhich was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's argument, the defendant's contention that the Supreme Courterred in denying that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress his statementto law enforcement officials as the product of an illegal arrest was preserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nielsen, 89 AD3d 1041, 1041 [2011]). However,the defendant's contention is without merit. "Probable cause does not require proofsufficient to warrant a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt but merely informationsufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed"(People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]). Here, the credible evidence at thesuppression hearing established that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant(see id. at 423; People vJohnson, 135 AD3d 960 [2016]).
The defendant's contention that his waiver of his Miranda rights (seeMiranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) was rendered invalid by the preamble readto him by the district attorney's detective investigator who conducted the prearraignmentinterview (see e.g. People vRivera, 128 AD3d 1100, 1101 [2015]), is unpreserved for appellate reviewinasmuch as the defendant failed to move to suppress his statement on this ground orotherwise raise the issue before the Supreme Court (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Grant, 96 AD3d779, 780 [2012]). We decline to reach that issue in the exercise of our interest ofjustice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Leventhal, J.P., Miller, Maltese andDuffy, JJ., concur.