| People v Robinson |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 02813 [160 AD3d 991] |
| April 25, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Joseph Robinson, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Tammy E. Linn of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, William H. Branigan, and Josette Simmons McGhee of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ronald D.Hollie, J.), rendered December 3, 2013, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in thesecond degree, attempted criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree, and false personation,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after ahearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physicalevidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly concluded that thePeople established probable cause to arrest the defendant (see People v Gayden, 28 NY3d 1035, 1037 [2016]; People vJackson, 249 AD2d 327, 327 [1998]; People v Lowe, 237 AD2d 903, 904 [1997];People v Irizarry, 203 AD2d 11 [1994], affd 84 NY2d 854 [1994]; People vHarrington, 193 AD2d 756 [1993]; cf. People v Reyes, 83 NY2d 945, 946 [1994]).Accordingly, the court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which wasto suppress the physical evidence recovered.
The defendant's contention that he was denied his constitutional rights to confront witnessesand present a defense because the Supreme Court limited his cross-examination of theconfidential informant is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Simmons, 106 AD3d 1115, 1116 [2013]). In anyevent, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting the defendant'scross-examination of this witness (seePeople v Hicks, 88 AD3d 817, 818 [2011]). The defendant lacked a good faith basis toquestion this witness on the existence of a cooperation agreement, and the court allowed thedefendant sufficient inquiry into this witness's "motive to curry favor with" the People(People v Chin, 67 NY2d 22, 30 [1986]; see People v Hicks, 88 AD3d at818-819).
The defendant's arguments regarding the prosecutor's opening statement and summation arenot fully preserved for appellate review, as he did not object to most of the allegedly impropercomments and did not request a curative instruction or move for a mistrial when the SupremeCourt sustained an objection that he did raise (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Parker-Davidson, 89 AD3d1114 [2011]; People v Malave,7 AD3d 542 [2004]). In any event, the prosecutor's remarks [*2]did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Finally, contrary to thedefendant's contention, defense counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's comments, withoutmore, did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the circumstances presented, asthe defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations forcounsel's alleged shortcomings (seePeople v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 176 [2003]; People v Gonzalez, 44 AD3d 790, 791 [2007]). Dillon, J.P.,Leventhal, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.