| People v Deverow |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 05968 [153 AD3d 550] |
| August 2, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jess Deverow, Appellant. |
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Lauren E. Jones of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, Merri Turk Lasky, and Mariana Zelig of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lewis,J.), rendered February 14, 2014, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, after a nonjurytrial, and imposing sentence, and (2) a resentence of the same court, imposed March 20, 2015.The appeal from the judgment brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch ofthe defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the resentence is dismissed as academic.
Following a nonjury trial, the defendant was convicted of robbery in the third degree inconnection with an incident in which he rode in an apartment building elevator with thecomplainant for nine floors, exited the elevator with the complainant, and then accosted thecomplainant in a deserted hallway, punching him in the face and stealing his jewelry.
At a suppression hearing, a police detective testified that the complainant confirmed that heand his attacker were depicted in a still photograph taken from a surveillance video of part of theunderlying incident. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied thatbranch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence basedon this testimony, as the complainant's confirmation was not the product of an unduly suggestivepolice identification procedure. Rather, the complainant was merely ratifying the events he hadpersonally experienced as depicted in the photo (see People v Gee, 99 NY2d 158 [2002];People v Lara, 130 AD3d 463[2015]; People v Justice, 127 AD3d786 [2015]; Matter of DashawnR., 120 AD3d 1250 [2014]; People v Cascio, 79 AD3d 1809 [2010]).
Similarly, the defendant's contention that the trial testimony of the detective constitutedimproper inferential bolstering of the complainant's identification of the defendant in violation ofPeople v Trowbridge (305 NY 471 [1953]) is without merit (see People v Jarvis,127 AD3d [*2]992 [2015]; People v Brown, 120 AD3d 710 [2014]; People v Totesau, 112 AD3d 977[2013]; People v Lassiter, 74 AD3d1094 [2010]; People v Moore, 159 AD2d 521 [1990]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the rights to present a defense and toconfront an adverse witness by the trial court's curtailment of his cross-examination regarding thecomplainant's description of the assailant is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Von Thaden, 108 AD3d733 [2013]; People vValdez-Cruz, 99 AD3d 738 [2012]; People v Haddock, 79 AD3d 1148 [2010]), and we decline to reachthat contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The defendant's contentions regarding his March 20, 2015, resentence have been renderedacademic by reason of his subsequent resentencing on August 23, 2016. Accordingly, we mustdismiss the appeal from the March 20, 2015, resentence as academic. Mastro, J.P., Sgroi, Malteseand Duffy, JJ., concur.