People v. Seecoomar, 110244
| Decision Date | 18 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | 110244 |
| Citation | 105 N.Y.S.3d 188,174 A.D.3d 1154 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ravin SEECOOMAR, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
174 A.D.3d 1154
105 N.Y.S.3d 188
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Ravin SEECOOMAR, Appellant.
110244
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Calendar Date: June 6, 2019
Decided and Entered: July 18, 2019
Samuel N. Iroegbu, Albany, for appellant.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Devine and Pritzker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pritzker, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Milano, J.), rendered July 21, 2016 in Schenectady County, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (four counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree.
Defendant was charged, in a nine-count indictment, with numerous drug crimes
stemming from the sale of cocaine to a confidential informant (hereinafter CI) as part of a controlled buy operation and the subsequent execution of a search warrant,
during which police found, among other things, cocaine, a scale, a large sum of money and other drug paraphernalia. Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (four counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree. Supreme Court thereafter sentenced defendant, as a second felony offender, to prison terms of six years followed by three years of postrelease supervision upon his convictions of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and to lesser concurrent prison terms for the remaining convictions. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.
Initially, County Court (Sypniewski, J.) properly denied defendant's motion for a Mapp/Dunaway hearing, "as the motion ‘failed to set forth any sworn allegations of fact supporting the grounds for the application’ " ( People v. Durfey, 170 A.D.3d 1331, 1336, 95 N.Y.S.3d 473 [2019], quoting People v. Gilmore, 72 A.D.3d 1191, 1192, 898 N.Y.S.2d 717 [2010] ; see People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 422, 604 N.Y.S.2d 922, 624 N.E.2d 1017 [1993] ). The same can be said of defendant's claim that he should have been granted a Darden hearing, as his motion papers did not set forth a factual basis to warrant such a hearing (see People v. Brown, 167 A.D.3d 1331, 1333, 90 N.Y.S.3d 380 [2018] ; People v. Hamilton, 276 A.D.2d 715, 716, 717 N.Y.S.2d 545 [2000], lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 759, 725 N.Y.S.2d 285, 748 N.E.2d 1081 [2001] ). As for defendant's claim that the search warrant was defective, the recording of the controlled buy established probable cause for the search warrant (see People v. Crooks, 27 N.Y.3d 609, 615, 36 N.Y.S.3d 440, 56 N.E.3d 222 [2016] ). In addition, probable cause was also supported by information from the police officers who were directly involved in the controlled buy operation and, thus, County Court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the physical evidence (see People v. Luciano, 152 A.D.3d 989, 992, 59 N.Y.S.3d 547 [2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1020, 70 N.Y.S.3d 453, 93 N.E.3d 1217 [2017] ).
We are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. This contention stems from an affidavit executed by the CI prior to trial that stated, among other things, that he did not purchase drugs from defendant on the day set forth in the indictment. "A weight of the evidence review requires us first to decide whether, based on all the credible evidence, a different finding would not have been unreasonable, and[,] ... [if not], weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony. When conducting a review of the weight of the
evidence, we view the evidence in a neutral light and defer to the jury's credibility assessments" ( People v. Nunes, 168 A.D.3d 1187, 1188, 90 N.Y.S.3d 694 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 979, 101 N.Y.S.3d 234, 124 N.E.3d 723 [2019] ; see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ).
At trial, the CI testified to the events that occurred the day he conducted the controlled buy. Specifically, he explained that he telephoned defendant asking him if he could come to his apartment
later that day to purchase an "eight ball" (approximately 3.5 grams of cocaine) for $200, to which defendant replied affirmatively. The CI then detailed the specifics of the controlled buy at length, including that he was searched prior to and at the conclusion of the controlled buy and that he wore audio and video recording equipment during the operation.1 Moreover, the recording of the controlled buy was played for the jury. The CI also testified that he executed an affidavit before trial in an attempt to help defendant because the two had been friends for years. The CI explained that defendant and his wife prepared the affidavit, that he signed it while at defendant's apartment and then he had it notarized by one of defendant's friends. The People questioned the CI about the affidavit, line by line, and the CI indicated which statements were correct and which were false. Notably, the CI indicated that, at the time he executed the affidavit, he believed that the date of the controlled buy, as alleged by the police, was incorrect, but that he had since learned that it was in fact correct. Although the affidavit stated that the police fabricated evidence, the CI testified that such statement was incorrect and that neither he nor the police manufactured any evidence. Ultimately, the CI testified that his in-court testimony was true and that the contents of the affidavit were largely false.
In addition, multiple police officers testified regarding the controlled buy and subsequent search of defendant's home. Luciano Savoia, a detective sergeant, and Ryan Kent, a police officer, described monitoring the controlled buy operation, explaining that the CI was equipped with various recording devices, including a GPS tracker to closely monitor the CI's movements
to and from defendant's apartment. Both Savoia and Kent described their observations of the CI during the controlled buy, including Savoia's testimony that he observed the CI enter the building where defendant lived and then exit a short time later. Kent added that he searched the CI prior to the controlled buy and that, immediately after returning, the CI handed him a sandwich bag that contained a substance that was ultimately determined to be cocaine. Savoia explained that, after the controlled buy, the police department applied for and was granted a search warrant for defendant's home. Savoia also testified that, as the search warrant was being executed and while defendant was being taken into custody outside his residence, defendant was repeatedly yelling "flush it" while looking in the direction of his apartment. As such, Savoia explained that he was concerned that potential evidence may be destroyed, so he and several other police officers entered defendant's apartment. Those police officers described executing the search warrant inside the apartment, wherein they discovered, among other things, a scale, a large bag of a white powder-like substance and a folded dollar bill containing a similar white powder, which was later tested and confirmed to be cocaine.
Based upon the foregoing, a different verdict would not have been unreasonable
To continue reading
Request your trial