People v. Highsmith

• Decision Date: 16 February 2022
• Docket Number: 2019–03621,Ind. No. 18–0021
• Citation: 202 A.D.3d 993,159 N.Y.S.3d 728 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Coty HIGHSMITH, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

202 A.D.3d 993

159 N.Y.S.3d 728 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Coty HIGHSMITH, appellant.

2019–03621

Ind. No. 18–0021

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

Submitted—November 12, 2021

February 16, 2022

Marianne Karas, Thornwood, NY, for appellant.

Miriam E. Rocah, District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Brian R. Pouliot and William C. Milaccio of counsel), for respondent.

VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, WILLIAM G. FORD, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Anne E. Minihan, J.), rendered February 5, 2019, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of the defendant's supplemental omnibus motion to controvert a search warrant and suppress physical evidence seized in the execution thereof.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court did not err in denying, without a hearing, his supplemental omnibus motion to controvert a search warrant and suppress physical evidence seized in the execution thereof. The defendant's supporting papers were conclusory and failed to set forth factual allegations sufficient to warrant a hearing (see CPL 710.60[3][b] ; People v. Garay, 25 N.Y.3d 62, 72, 7 N.Y.S.3d 254, 30 N.E.3d 145 ; People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 426, 604 N.Y.S.2d 922, 624 N.E.2d 1017 ). Further, the defendant improperly relies upon trial testimony, which may not be considered in evaluating a suppression ruling on appeal (see People v. Abrew, 95 N.Y.2d 806, 808, 710 N.Y.S.2d 833, 732 N.E.2d 940 ; People v. Perez–Rodriguez, 166 A.D.3d 659, 659–660, 87 N.Y.S.3d 204 ). His contention that the court erred in failing to reconsider his suppression motion in light of the trial testimony is without merit, as he did not move for such relief (see generally People v. Abrew, 95 N.Y.2d at 808, 710 N.Y.S.2d 833, 732 N.E.2d 940 ; People v. Rice, 39 A.D.3d 567, 568, 834 N.Y.S.2d 254 ; People v. Crosby, 33 A.D.3d 719, 720, 821 N.Y.S.2d 908 ).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court conducted an adequate inquiry into the reasons for his request for the assignment of new counsel (see generally People v. Porto, 16 N.Y.3d 93, 99–102, 917 N.Y.S.2d 74, 942 N.E.2d 283 ; People v. Linares, 2 N.Y.3d 507, 510–511, 780 N.Y.S.2d 529, 813 N.E.2d 609 ). The defendant's responses did not suggest the possibility of a genuine conflict of interest or other good cause for the substitution of counsel (see People v. Polite, 164 A.D.3d 1372, 1374, 83 N.Y.S.3d 607 ; People v. Wright, 147 A.D.3d 1088, 1089, 47 N.Y.S.3d 471 ; People v. Cheeks, 107 A.D.3d 1013, 1014, 966 N.Y.S.2d 893 ).

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 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 ; 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 verdict of guilt was not against the weight...