People v. Rahman

• Citation: 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05530,925 N.Y.S.2d 852,85 A.D.3d 1062
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Addullah RAHMAN, appellant.
• Decision Date: 21 June 2011
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

85 A.D.3d 1062
925 N.Y.S.2d 852
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05530

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Addullah RAHMAN, appellant.

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

June 21, 2011.

Ellen O'Hara Woods, Orangeburg, N.Y., for appellant.Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel; Benjamin Y. Abed on the brief), for respondent.

[85 A.D.3d 1062] Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Alfieri, J.), rendered August 30, 2007, convicting him of possession of a forged instrument in the first degree (272 counts), criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and criminal possession of a forgery device, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Bartlett, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People satisfied their burden of establishing that the police had probable cause to arrest him because the informant had a sufficient basis for his statements to the police, and was reliable ( see Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637; Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723; People v. DiFalco, 80 N.Y.2d 693, 697, 594 N.Y.S.2d 679, 610 N.E.2d 352;

[925 N.Y.S.2d 853]

People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 424–426, 497 N.Y.S.2d 630, 488 N.E.2d 451; People v. Whittle, 48 A.D.3d 714, 714, 852 N.Y.S.2d 300; People v. Nabarrete, 18 A.D.3d 782, 782–783, 794 N.Y.S.2d 917; People v. Rios, 11 A.D.3d 641, 642, 782 N.Y.S.2d 863). Upon arresting the defendant and the passenger of the vehicle he was driving, the police had probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained evidence or contraband related to the crime for which the arrest was being made and, therefore, the warrantless search of the vehicle was proper ( see People v. Galak, 81 N.Y.2d 463, 466–467, 600 N.Y.S.2d 185, 616 N.E.2d 842; People v. Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49, 54–55, 447 N.Y.S.2d 873, 432 N.E.2d 745; People v. Thorne, 61 A.D.3d 708, 708, 878 N.Y.S.2d 742; People v. Whittle, 48 A.D.3d at 714–715, 852 N.Y.S.2d 300). Accordingly, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence was properly denied.

The County Court did not err in allowing the defendant to represent himself during the trial. The record, as a whole, demonstrates that the defendant made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent decision to waive his right to...