| People v McCalla |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 03368 [172 AD3d 750] |
| May 1, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Tyrone McCalla, Appellant. |
Law Office of Thomas R. Villecco, P.C., Jericho, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Sarah S. Rabinowitz and Cristin N.Connell of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (ChristopherG. Quinn, J.), rendered January 5, 2016, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (threecounts), grand larceny in the third degree, criminal mischief in the second degree, and criminalmischief in the fourth degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Theappeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibusmotion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On December 10, 2013, the defendant was taken into custody by officers of the NassauCounty Police Department (hereinafter NCPD) after he exited a criminal courtroom in QueensCounty. He was transported to a police precinct in Nassau County where, after being advised ofand waiving his Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]), hewas questioned by an NCPD detective about three burglaries that occurred on November 12,2013, November 13, 2013, and November 22, 2013, respectively, in Nassau County. Thedefendant was not represented by counsel in connection with the questioning about the allegedburglaries in Nassau County. The detective did not question the defendant about the QueensCounty matter, in which the defendant was represented by counsel.
The defendant contends that his statements should have been suppressed on the ground thatthe Nassau County burglaries and Queens County matter were so closely related "transactionally,or in space or time," that any questioning concerning the Nassau County burglaries would "all butinevitably" elicit incriminating statements pertaining to the Queens County matter (People v Henry, 31 NY3d 364,368 [2018] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Cohen, 90 NY2d 632, 638[1997]; People v Vella, 21 NY2d 249, 251-252 [1967]). This contention is unpreservedfor appellate review, since this particular issue was not raised by the defendant in the SupremeCourt (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Turriago, 90 NY2d 77, 84 [1997]; People v Madison, 22 AD3d 684,686 [2005]). In any event, there is no evidence in the record to establish that the Nassau Countyburglaries and the Queens County matter were so closely related transactionally, or in space ortime, that questioning, in the absence of representation, about the Nassau County burglarieswould all but inevitably elicit incriminating responses regarding the Queens County matter inwhich there had been an entry of counsel (see People v Henry, 31 NY3d at 369-370;People v Cohen, 90 NY2d at 638; People v Cowan, 92 AD3d 794, 795 [2012]; People vRivera, 277 AD2d 470, 472 [2000]). Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's denialof that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to lawenforcement officials. Mastro, J.P., Roman, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.