| People v Adams |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 00431 [157 AD3d 897] |
| January 24, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lorenzo Adams, Appellant. |
Mark Diamond, New York, NY, for appellant.
Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, NY (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (WilliamA. Kelly, J.), rendered June 4, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and criminalpossession of an anti-security item, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appealbrings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motionwhich was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction ofrobbery in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484,492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution(see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient toestablish the defendant's guilt of that crime (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]). Moreover, infulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence(see CPL 470.15 [5]; People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt of that crimewas not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of hisomnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officials. Thedefendant was not in custody at the time that he made the first two sets of challenged statements(see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 [1969]; People v Gelin, 128 AD3d 717 [2015]; People v Reardon, 124 AD3d 681[2015]; People v Gore, 117 AD3d845, 845-846 [2014]; People vMartin, 68 AD3d 1015 [2009]). The third challenged statement, made while thedefendant was in custody but prior to the administration of Miranda warnings (seeMiranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]), was spontaneous, and not triggered by any policequestioning or other conduct which reasonably could have been expected to elicit a declarationfrom him (see People v Goldson,136 AD3d 1053, 1054 [2016]; People v Barley, 82 AD3d 996, 996 [2011]; People v Henderson, 57 AD3d 562[2008]).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's jury instructions diminished the People'sburden of proof is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event,the jury instructions, taken as a whole, conveyed the correct standard (see People vMedina, 18 NY3d [*2]98 [2011]; People v Fields, 87NY2d 821 [1995]; People vHankerson, 149 AD3d 778 [2017]; People v King, 73 AD3d 1083 [2010]). Since the instructions wereadequate, defense counsel's failure to object to the court's charge did not constitute ineffectiveassistance of counsel (see People vHankerson, 149 AD3d 778 [2017]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to present a defense by theSupreme Court's curtailment of his cross-examination of a prosecution witness is alsounpreserved for appellate review (seePeople v Valdez-Cruz, 99 AD3d 738 [2012]). In any event, this contention is withoutmerit (see People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 56 [1988]; People v Cruz, 131 AD3d 706, 707 [2015]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Hall, J.P., Hinds-Radix, Malteseand Iannacci, JJ., concur.