| People v Wiggins |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 00499 [146 AD3d 995] |
| January 25, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Azhar Wiggins, Appellant. |
Bruce R. Bekritsky, Mineola, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Tammy J. Smiley and Michael J.Balch of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Harrington, J.), rendered June 17, 2015, convicting him of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, andcriminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing pursuant to astipulation in lieu of motions (Paradiso, J.), of the suppression of physical evidence andthe defendant's statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied suppression of physical evidence and thedefendant's statements to law enforcement officials. "The hearing court's credibilitydeterminations are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unlessclearly unsupported by the record" (People v Grant, 83 AD3d 862, 863 [2011]; see People v Frazier, 140AD3d 977, 977-978 [2016]). Here, the record supports the hearing court'sdetermination to credit the testimony of a detective, experienced in policing drug crimes,that from 10-15 feet away, he observed the defendant exchange a small plastic bag forcurrency. Further, this observation, coupled with the defendant's immediate flight uponseeing the detectives, the detectives' training and experience, and testimony that theexchange occurred in an area known for drug crime, were sufficient to supply probablecause for the defendant's arrest (see People v McRay, 51 NY2d 594, 603-604[1980]; People v Vega, 56AD3d 578, 579 [2008]; People v Powell, 32 AD3d 544, 544-545 [2006]; Peoplev Hall, 234 AD2d 478, 479 [1996]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establishthe defendant's guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degree.Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weightof the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt onthose counts was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633, 643 [2006]).
The defendant argues that certain jurors should have been dismissed for cause basedupon comments they made during jury selection. However, the defendant waived thiscontention [*2]by failing to challenge the jurors for causebefore they were sworn (see CPL 270.15 [4]; People v Boyce, 118 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2014]; Peoplev Sellers, 295 AD2d 629 [2002]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, inany event, without merit. Eng, P.J., Balkin, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.