Opinion
00-01647
Submitted March 28, 2002
June 3, 2002
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered January 28, 2000, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and possession of burglar's tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Rosengarten, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
Kevin Costello, Flushing, N.Y., for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Gabriel Tapalaga of counsel), for respondent.
NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidence taken from his person, i.e., a screwdriver. The police officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant based upon the information contained in a radio transmission and their own observations, which included witnessing the defendant entering the rear window of the home which was being burglarized, and the defendant's subsequent flight from the scene (see People v. McDonald, 285 A.D.2d 615; People v. Allen, 278 A.D.2d 331; People v. Starr, 221 A.D.2d 488). In that regard, under the circumstances of this case, the knowledge possessed by each officer is imputed to the other (see People v. Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 N.Y.2d 99; People v. Starr, supra; People v. Gittens, 211 A.D.2d 242). The screwdriver was properly taken from the defendant because it was seized during a pat-down search following the establishment of probable cause for the defendant's arrest (see People v. Mack, 26 N.Y.2d 311, cert denied 400 U.S. 960).
The respective testimonies of the police officers who handled the screwdriver which was recovered from the defendant's pocket provided reasonable assurance of the object's identity and unchanged condition (see People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340). Thus, the absence of testimony by one of the officers concerning any particular identifying marks on the screwdriver related only to the weight accorded such evidence, not its admissibility (see People v. Julian, supra; cf. Matter of Shaheem F., 229 A.D.2d 436).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15).
SMITH, J.P., O'BRIEN, McGINITY and TOWNES, JJ., concur.