Disposition: Applications for Criminal Leave to appeal denied Decision Reported Below: 2d Dept: 192 A.D.3d 698 (Nassau)
The defendant's reliance on certain scientific principles in support of his credibility arguments is improper, as those arguments are raised for the first time on appeal (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Abboud, 192 A.D.3d 698, 699), and they rely on evidence that is both dehors the record (see People v Smith, 158 A.D.3d 654, 655-656; People v Cosby, 154 A.D.3d 789, 790; People v Fitzpatrick, 120 A.D.3d 565, 565), and, without more, inadmissible (see Spensieri v Lasky, 94 N.Y.2d 231, 236-238; Saccone v Gross, 84 A.D.3d 1208, 1209; see generally Jerome Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 7-313 [Farrell 11th ed 1995, 2008 Supp]). We conclude that the police conduct in this case was justified at its inception and reasonably limited in scope at each step in response to the circumstances presented (see People v Lawrence, 17 A.D.3d 697, 698; People v Harris, 221 A.D.2d at 367).
Here, the Supreme Court's decision to credit the testimony of the arresting officer was supported by the record, and there is no basis to disturb it (seePeople v. Burbridge, 194 A.D.3d 831, 833, 147 N.Y.S.3d 129 ; People v. Bookman, 131 A.D.3d 1258, 1260, 16 N.Y.S.3d 848 ; People v. Kelly, 131 A.D.3d 484, 485, 15 N.Y.S.3d 391 ). The defendant's reliance on certain scientific principles in support of his credibility arguments is improper, as those arguments are raised for the first time on appeal (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Abboud, 192 A.D.3d 698, 699, 139 N.Y.S.3d 566 ), and they rely on evidence that is both dehors the record (seePeople v. Smith, 158 A.D.3d 654, 655–656, 70 N.Y.S.3d 535 ; People v. Cosby, 154 A.D.3d 789, 790, 61 N.Y.S.3d 676 ; People v. Fitzpatrick, 120 A.D.3d 565, 565, 990 N.Y.S.2d 838 ), and, without more, inadmissible (seeSpensieri v. Lasky, 94 N.Y.2d 231, 236–238, 701 N.Y.S.2d 689, 723 N.E.2d 544 ; Saccone v. Gross, 84 A.D.3d 1208, 1209, 923 N.Y.S.2d 878 ; see generally Jerome Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 7–313 [Farrell 11th ed 1995, 2008 Supp]). We conclude that the police conduct in this case was justified at its inception and reasonably limited in scope at each step in response to the circumstances presented (seePeople v. Lawrence, 17 A.D.3d 697, 698, 794 N.Y.S.2d 118 ; People v. Harris, 221 A.D.2d at 367, 633 N.Y.S.2d 377 ).
The defendant's reliance on certain scientific principles in support of his credibility arguments is improper, as those arguments are raised for the first time on appeal (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Abboud, 192 A.D.3d 698, 699), and they rely on evidence that is both dehors the record (see People v Smith, 158 A.D.3d 654, 655-656; People v Cosby, 154 A.D.3d 789, 790; People v Fitzpatrick, 120 A.D.3d 565, 565), and, without more, inadmissible (see Spensieri v Lasky, 94 N.Y.2d 231, 236-238; Saccone v Gross, 84 A.D.3d 1208, 1209; see generally Jerome Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 7-313 [Farrell 11th ed 1995, 2008 Supp]). We conclude that the police conduct in this case was justified at its inception and reasonably limited in scope at each step in response to the circumstances presented (see People v Lawrence, 17 A.D.3d 697, 698; People v Harris, 221 A.D.2d at 367).
The defendant's reliance on certain scientific principles in support of his credibility arguments is improper, as those arguments are raised for the first time on appeal (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Abboud, 192 A.D.3d 698, 699), and they rely on evidence that is both dehors the record (see People v Smith, 158 A.D.3d 654, 655-656; People v Cosby, 154 A.D.3d 789, 790; People v Fitzpatrick, 120 A.D.3d 565, 565), and, without more, inadmissible (see Spensieri v Lasky, 94 N.Y.2d 231, 236-238; Saccone v Gross, 84 A.D.3d 1208, 1209; see generally Jerome Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 7-313 [Farrell 11th ed 1995, 2008 Supp]). We conclude that the police conduct in this case was justified at its inception and reasonably limited in scope at each step in response to the circumstances presented (see People v Lawrence, 17 A.D.3d 697, 698; People v Harris, 221 A.D.2d at 367).