People v. Bristol

• Citation: 958 N.Y.S.2d 215,102 A.D.3d 881,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00348
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Marcel C. BRISTOL, appellant.
• Decision Date: 23 January 2013
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

102 A.D.3d 881
958 N.Y.S.2d 215
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00348

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Marcel C. BRISTOL, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Jan. 23, 2013.

[958 N.Y.S.2d 216]

Matthew Muraskin, Port Jefferson, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Michael J. Balch of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, L. PRISCILLA HALL and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

[102 A.D.3d 881]Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kase, J.), rendered September 17, 2009, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, grand larceny in the third degree (three counts), criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (two counts), identity theft in the first degree (four counts), and scheme to defraud in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a [102 A.D.3d 882]hearing (McCormack, J.), of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statement to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted

[958 N.Y.S.2d 217]

to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new trial.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly determined that the police lawfully stopped the vehicle in which he was a passenger, and that his arrest was supported by probable cause ( see People v. Walker, 186 A.D.2d 606, 588 N.Y.S.2d 399). Accordingly, the court properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statement to law enforcement officials.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of grand larceny in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053,cert. denied542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828;People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the...