Opinion
08-24-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Nathan INGRAM, appellant.
Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se. James A. McCarty, Acting District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Adrienne M. Chapoulie, Laurie Sapakoff, and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.
James A. McCarty, Acting District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Adrienne M. Chapoulie, Laurie Sapakoff, and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, ROBERT J. MILLER, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
Opinion Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered December 11, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion, made during the trial, to reopen the suppression hearing. A court may grant a motion to reopen a suppression hearing “upon a showing by the defendant, that additional pertinent facts have been discovered by the defendant which he [or she] could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination of the motion” (CPL 710.40[4] ; see People v. Velez, 39 A.D.3d 38, 42, 829 N.Y.S.2d 209 ). Here, the defendant failed to establish that he could not, with due diligence, have discovered the additional facts asserted in his motion in time to present them at the suppression hearing (see People v. Ekwegbalu, 131 A.D.3d 982, 984, 15 N.Y.S.3d 847 ; People v. Rhodes, 60 A.D.3d 705, 705, 873 N.Y.S.2d 504 ).
The record does not establish that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on the ground that one of his trial attorneys had a conflict of interest (see People v. Sanchez, 21 N.Y.3d 216, 222–224, 969 N.Y.S.2d 840, 991 N.E.2d 698 ; People v. Watson, 115 A.D.3d 687, 690, 981 N.Y.S.2d 753 ). Moreover, the record does not establish that the defendant was otherwise deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ).
The defendant's claims raised in his pro se supplemental brief that are based on matter dehors the record are not properly before this Court (see People v. Fully, 109 A.D.3d 936, 936, 971 N.Y.S.2d 459 ). The defendant's claims raised in his pro se supplemental brief that are based on matter appearing on the record are without merit.