Opinion
No. 2002-10713.
October 17, 2006.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J), rendered November 14, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (14 counts), menacing in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Pincus, J), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress certain physical evidence.
Before: Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his application to reopen the pretrial suppression hearing. A court may reopen a hearing during trial where, inter alia, the defendant makes a showing "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 [original suppression] motion" (CPL 710.40). Here, the additional facts concerned the location where the defendant parked his car prior to his arrest. Since this was a fact of which the defendant is presumed to have knowledge, the application to reopen the hearing was properly denied (see People v Young, 278 AD2d 437; People v Hankins, 265 AD2d 572).
The issue of legal sufficiency is unpreserved for appellate review and the defendant's remaining contentions are without merit or do not require reversal.