| People v Martin |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 01309 [147 AD3d 587] |
| February 21, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Timothy Martin, Appellant. |
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Samuel E. Steinbock-Pratt ofcounsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Eleanor J. Ostrow of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa C. Jackson, J., at Dardenhearing; Richard D. Carruthers, J., at pretrial proceedings, jury trial and sentencing), renderedNovember 10, 2014, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in thethird and fifth degrees and two counts of criminally using drug paraphernalia in the seconddegree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to an aggregate term of two years,unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is nobasis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. There was ample evidence to connectdefendant with the contraband found.
When defendant requested unspecified "paperwork" concerning an unrelated search warrantexecuted by the same team of officers on the day they executed the warrant that led to defendant'sarrest, this request was insufficient to alert the court to defendant's present claim that he wasentitled to these documents as Rosario material (People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286[1961], cert denied 368 US 866 [1961]). We decline to review this unpreserved claim inthe interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. Assuming that theundisclosed materials included any statements by a witness who testified at defendant's trial,there is nothing to indicate that these statements concerning the other search warrant would have"relate[d] to the subject matter of the witness's testimony" (CPL 240.45 [1] [a]; People v Mack, 100 AD3d 460[1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1012 [2013]).
Neither Miranda warnings nor CPL 710.30 (1) (a) notice was required with respect todefendant's statement, in response to a detective's pedigree question, that his residence was theapartment where the police had executed a search warrant and discovered contraband. Thedetective's routine administrative questioning was not designed to elicit an incriminatingresponse (see Pennsylvania v Muniz, 496 US 582, 601-602 [1990]; People vRodney, 85 NY2d 289, 292-294 [1995]; People v Watts, 309 AD2d 628 [1st Dept2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 582 [2003]), even if the answer was reasonably likely to beincriminating (see People v Alleyne,34 AD3d 367 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 918 [2007], cert denied 552 US 878[2007]).
The court did not delegate control of a portion of jury selection to a court officer, and therewas no mode of proceedings error. When the officer reported to the court and parties that aprospective juror was pacing in the hallway and making rambling, belligerent remarks, the court,without objection, directed that the panelist be excused. The officer did not perform any judicialfunction, but "simply supplied information upon which the court made its own determination"(People v Singletary, 66 AD3d564, 566 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]) that the panelist wasunqualified to serve, and the circumstances did not require a direct colloquy between the panelistand the court.
[*2] Based on our review of the minutesof the hearing conducted pursuant to People v Darden (34 NY2d 177 [1974]), we findthat there was probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. Concur—Acosta, J.P.,Renwick, Moskowitz, Feinman and Gesmer, JJ.