Opinion
2017-08740 Ind. No. 983/16
10-09-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Windsor K. COLEMAN, Appellant.
Alan Katz, Garden City Park, NY, for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Daniel Bresnahan, Barbara Kornblau, and Hilda Mortensen of counsel), for respondent.
Alan Katz, Garden City Park, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Daniel Bresnahan, Barbara Kornblau, and Hilda Mortensen of counsel), for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (William C. Donnino, J.), rendered June 30, 2017, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (two counts), and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing pursuant to a stipulation in lieu of motions, of the suppression of identification testimony.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. Since the People did not offer identification testimony at trial from the confidential informant who identified the defendant from a photo array, the defendant's contention that the hearing court erred in denying suppression of identification testimony is academic (see People v. Jones , 131 A.D.3d 1179, 1179–1180, 16 N.Y.S.3d 328 ; People v. Harris , 68 A.D.3d 783, 783, 888 N.Y.S.2d 906 ).
"To establish probable cause, a search warrant application must provide sufficient information ‘to support a reasonable belief that evidence of a crime may be found in a certain place’ " ( People v. Murray , 136 A.D.3d 714, 714, 24 N.Y.S.3d 194, quoting People v. McCulloch , 226 A.D.2d 848, 849, 640 N.Y.S.2d 914 ; see People v. Augustus , 163 A.D.3d 981, 982, 83 N.Y.S.3d 281 ). Where probable cause is established through hearsay information provided by a confidential informant, the warrant application must also demonstrate both the veracity and reliability of the source of the information, and the basis of the informant's knowledge (see People v. Griminger , 71 N.Y.2d 635, 639, 529 N.Y.S.2d 55, 524 N.E.2d 409 ). There is "no one acid test of reliability" ( People v. Rodriguez , 52 N.Y.2d 483, 489, 438 N.Y.S.2d 754, 420 N.E.2d 946 ). A confidential informant will be considered reliable "where details of his [or her] story have been confirmed by police observation" ( id. at 489, 438 N.Y.S.2d 754, 420 N.E.2d 946 ; see e.g. People v. Slater , 141 A.D.3d 677, 677–678, 35 N.Y.S.3d 452 ; People v. Brucciani , 82 A.D.3d 1001, 1002, 919 N.Y.S.2d 54 ).
We agree with the denial of the defendant's application to controvert a search warrant authorizing a search of his home, which was predicated on certain controlled buys of heroin by a confidential informant. The police affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant application contained ample factual allegations of criminal conduct at the defendant's home to justify the issuance of the warrant (see People v. Murray , 136 A.D.3d at 714, 24 N.Y.S.3d 194 ). Moreover, the factual allegations in the police affidavit were sufficient to demonstrate that the confidential informant who performed the buys was reliable (see People v. Magny , 162 A.D.3d 1072, 1073, 80 N.Y.S.3d 337 ; People v. Slater , 141 A.D.3d at 677–678, 35 N.Y.S.3d 452 ; People v. Brucciani , 82 A.D.3d at 1002, 919 N.Y.S.2d 54 ; People v. Keyes , 291 A.D.2d 571, 738 N.Y.S.2d 678 ).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes , 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, 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, 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 of the evidence (see People v. Romero , 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., AUSTIN, COHEN and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.