People v. Vasalka

• Decision Date: 16 May 1994
• Citation: 204 A.D.2d 581,614 N.Y.S.2d 206
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Steven VASALKA, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 206

614 N.Y.S.2d 206

204 A.D.2d 581

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Steven VASALKA, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

May 16, 1994.

Ilene H. Cohen, Roslyn, for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Andrea M. DiGregorio and Alexis Kriedman, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.), rendered September 23, 1991, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement authorities.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Under the circumstances of this case, the police officers were justified in detaining the defendant until the witness to the crime could arrive for the purpose of making an identification (see, People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 508 N.Y.S.2d 163, 500 N.E.2d 861; People v. Bedoya, 190 A.D.2d 812, 593 N.Y.S.2d 858; People v. McLaughlin, 132 A.D.2d 712, 518 N.Y.S.2d 407). When the witness failed to identify the defendant or his companion as the assailant, they were both released.

The hearing court found that when detectives stopped the defendant early the following morning, the defendant agreed to accompany them back to the station house. The court's determination in this regard is supported by the record, and we find no basis for disturbing it (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380; People v. Boone, 183 A.D.2d 721, 583 N.Y.S.2d 299). The hearing court, therefore, properly denied the defendant's motion to supress his statements to the detectives at the station house (see, People v. Rogers, 52 N.Y.2d 527, 439 N.Y.S.2d 96, 421 N.E.2d 491; People v. Dyla, 142 A.D.2d 423, 536 N.Y.S.2d 799).

The sentence that was imposed does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of constitutional limitations (see, N.Y. Const., art. I, § 5; U.S. Const., 8th Amend; People v. Adams, 194 A.D.2d 680, 599 N.Y.S.2d 1001; People v. Boatwright, 159 A.D.2d 510, 552 N.Y.S.2d 379), nor is it unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

THOMPSON, J.P., and COPERTINO, PIZZUTO and SANTUCCI, JJ., concur.